D&D General New Interview with Rob Heinsoo About 4E

[GMforPowergamers]

This all makes me wonder, if balance, as whole, is a fools errand in games like D&D. It sure doesn't seem like the vast majority of 5e players care. And the evidence that it has a positive effect on player numbers seems scant.

If talk of better balance appeared a year or two into 3e and disappeared a year or two after 5e I would agree... however at stores and cons even with new players that have played 0 other TTRPGs I see it still to this day.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

MY problem overall is that 4e was a revelation, and brought the core game closer to what I have always wanted... It was FAR from perfect, but what it needed was another year or two and a 5e that built from it up not throwing it out for a retro game.

4e walked so... nothing 4e stumbled alot and all the (well most of the) lessons learned got gutted for 5e.

5e is an okay game... but one that just doesn't fit what I want from D&D. 2e is great as long as you keep your rose colored nostalgia glasses on. I would not go back to a 3e/3.5/PF game if you payed me, and 1e/basic fall between 3e and 2e for me (since my nostalgia is for the 90s)
4e was my game... it is my game, it's just hard to code into virtual tables.

my 2 groups are currently playing Rifts, Torg, 5e and 5e. both 5e games has players that want to play TSR versions more, 1 5e game has players that want PF/3e, and both have players (me only in 1 case, half the game in the other) that want to play 4e. 5e is our compromise and we are holding out hope the new PHB will somehow make all of us happier.

 

[Belen]

I am looking for (as near as humanly possible) perfect balance between the classes. One of my problems with 5E is that casters are simply better than everyone else, that they utterly eclipse everyone else.

This is not my experience. The martial classes in my last game were better than the optimized caster.

 

[overgeeked]

This is not my experience. The martial classes in my last game were better than the optimized caster.

How optimized were the characters, what house rules did you use, how close to the adventuring day advice did you adhere, and what were your encounter designs like?

 

[DinoInDisguise]

For example in games I've played or run, Wizards don't really overshadow other characters.

The DM, and the players to a lesser extent, have a great impact on if balance issues manifest. I think that is why balance becomes largely irrelevant past a certain point of usability - as a prior poster astutely noted.

If the DM has a greater impact on the balance within any one encounter, than the mathematics of the rules do, it becomes nebulous as to whether greater balance, mathematically, does anything. If fighters are balanced around single target damage, and wizards around area of effect, if a DM gives only encounters that favor the latter, an imbalance appears. The reverse would be true as well.

Same for players. If players respect niches, is it a negative that knock steps on the rogue's toes? Not really, that rogue is being allowed to shine in the group. That rogue probably doesn't feel any imbalance. And knock's existence, allows party's without a rogue to open locks.

I think this is an important part of the discussion. And I think it's, largely, why 5e's imbalance doesn't seem to matter to many groups.

 

[jayoungr]

If talk of better balance appeared a year or two into 3e and disappeared a year or two after 5e I would agree...

There is always going to be talk about better balance. The question is how dominant it is.

 

[overgeeked]

The DM, and the players to a lesser extent, have a great impact on if balance issues manifest. I think that is why balance becomes largely irrelevant past a certain point of usability - as a prior poster astutely noted.

No, not really. If the game's balanced from the go, then the referee and players have to work hard to unbalance things. If the game's unbalanced from the go, then the referee and players have to work hard to balance things. 4E was balanced around the encounter, which every single game would interact with on a regular basis. 5E is balanced around the 6-8 encounter adventuring day, which very few games actually interact with at all...much less on a regular basis. And that's the source of most of the balance issues with 5E. Lots of digital ink has been spilled about how to fix that problem.

Same for players. If players respect niches, is it a negative that knock steps on the rogue's toes?

That's a gargantuan if.

I think this is an important part of the discussion. And I think it's, largely, why 5e's imbalance doesn't seem to matter to many groups.

There's also, seemingly, a lot of people who like the imbalance for its own sake. It enables the power fantasy they're after.

 

[I'm A Banana]

5E is balanced around the 6-8 encounter adventuring day

5e's balanced around the encounter.

It's just also OK with parties also choosing to nope out of an encounter.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

No, not really. If the game's balanced from the go, then the referee and players have to work hard to unbalance things. If the game's unbalanced from the go, then the referee and players have to work hard to balance things.

I could be weird. But sharing the spotlight as a player and giving players equal opportunities to shine as a DM are, from my understanding, common practice. I think stretching common practice to "working hard" is odd.

It might be different, if greater balance wasn't a zero sum game. It's not possible to both maintain individuality of things while balancing them past a certain point. There is an inherent tradeoff.

The "all classes feel samey" argument in regards to 4e is an example of that. Making fighters just re-skinned wizards would be a huge negative to the game - in spite of being objectively better balanced. You can balance the game by just reskinning the best class - or any class for that matter. Very few would play it, but you can do that.

I believe there is a balancing act to be done, between balance and diversity of classes. I also think we risk creating equal, but opposite, imbalances if care is not taken.

Given these issues, trying to further balance a system that is as popular and well liked as 5e, seems to be a dangerous game with little upside for WotC. 5e just doesn't have much room to grow, and has a great deal of room to fall.

 

[Chaltab]

The "all classes feel samey" argument in regards to 4e is an example of that. Making fighters just re-skinned wizards would be a huge negative to the game - in spite of being objectively better balanced. You can balance the game by just reskinning the best class - or any class for that matter. Very few would play it, but you can do that.

I mean true, but it's also a false dichotomy. A system can be asymetrically designed while still being mostly balanced. 'All classes feel samey' in 4E was never really accurate in play, it was an impression. Similarly the computer game Starcraft has three very different enemy factions that are still quite well balanced.