D&D (2024) Party Balance?

[Distracted DM]

I don't think they need to say why. Because the new players will just learn it via their experience playing it.

I always get the feeling that many veteran players have this need to continually "protect the new players" by making sure that anything that could go wrong is sanded down and smoothed out so that those issues never happen. As though these new players are like toddlers and we have to keep them safe at all costs... lest they decide D&D "isn't for them" and they stop playing. Everything should be explained away so that these players "know what they are getting into", rather than just figuring it out for themselves.

But in truth... more often than not these "rough edges" that veteran players wanted sanded down ostensibly to "protect the new players" are really just burrs under their own saddles that they want removed for their own sake more than anything else. They don't like some particular set of rules so they come up with reasons why those rules don't "help new players" to be the reason why those rules should be taken out or changed. When in actuality... those veteran players are so far removed from what they actually do need or want as a new player that no one can take their claims on faith. They haven't been a new players for years, if not decades-- especially not new players who have experienced games of other types that have tropes or concepts adapted from or taken directly from RPGs-- so what they think is "necessary" to play the game as a new player is not in fact true.

Which means that these recommendations that game is giving that the Core Four classes are your typical party composition is not in fact "necessary". And heck depending on how a particular table of new players plays... might not even be true. They may play a game with 4 Barbarians and find the game plays fine just because of how their DM runs things. But that's not to say this information is completely useless to everybody nor is it actively a hindrance even if it isn't necessary or required to be there. Some people might find it useful, some won't. But that's okay. It's there to be used if some table wants to, but they don't have to if they don't want. Just like the game gives 1st level spell recommendations to starting characters and offer up starting equipment. And players won't know if they are useful until they try and use them. But a veteran player making a declaration that they absolutely won't or absolutely will is a bunch of hooey. They have no idea either.

This PHB is all about the new player experience. I'm all for learning through trial and error, but giving a one-sentence justification/explanation for statements like "you need a rogue but a ranger will do" seems more helpful than less. Heck, in a system where anyone can find and disarm traps and sneak I'm not sure why the rogue is there.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think there is a big difference with generality of role which 5E does, and built specifically to work in a way that 4E does.

I genuinely don't understand the distinction you're drawing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No. Instead, my expectation is that we will pass along knowledge and skills we have already obtained, so that future new players do not need to spend a long time developing those same things themselves.

This is not somehow bad or wrong or weird. It is literally the foundation of all human knowledge: that we collect, condense, and preserve the knowledge our forebears obtained. We then apply it to tasks and questions of our own, which we and those who come after us will collect, condense, and preserve similarly.

Sure. Passing on your own experience as just a bit more information for a new player to add to their file cabinet of information from which they can pick and choose what is in it and make their decisions from is fine. No argument from me there.

But my point was that I get the sense that just passing on experience and information isn't enough for many players... they want their experience to actively change what is made available to new players based upon what they think new players really "need". It's not enough to just give their information and experience and let the new players decide to take it or not take it... they want things "fixed" beforehand so that the new players have no choices-- they HAVE to use things as decided on by the veteran players as being the best and safest option for them. They are trying to protecting new players from a thing that doesn't require that level of protection. After all, it's only a game. And if someone bounces off of the game because it ultimately doesn't work for them... that's fine. No big deal. It doesn't require us to change it so that this can never happen.

 

[KYRON45]

Balance is a myth.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think there is a big difference with generality of role which 5E does, and built specifically to work in a way that 4E does.

Heh... whereas I'm sure there are a lot of us who would say it was actually a very small difference with the generality of role which 5E does, and built specifically to work in a way that 4E does.

And that was always one of the problems. Some folks just didn't like the inferred information everyone had in AD&D, 2E and 3E was merely made plain in 4E. The game told us what we already knew-- they just made it a game concept rather than keep it a more narrative idea. But that's why it never bothered me what 4E did, because I saw them all as exceedingly close regardless.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Balance is a myth.

It's also overrated.

 

[FrogReaver]

when it comes to adventure modules I think it’s solid advice. With a dm running custom adventures he can adapt to whatever party you throw at him just fine.

IMO. An ideal party needs to have:

• good single target damage capabilities
• good aoe capabilities (control or damage or both is fine, some of which ideally is party friendly).
• About half the party best from range and half best from melee (characters that can switch between range and melee are good additions, also the characters on melee should have good defensive measures)
• Party should have some healing, temp hp, or other defensive abilities that can be used on an ally.
• Party needs ways to handle negative conditions, whether that’s saving throw buffs, rerolls or actions/spells to end them.
• Party needs diverse out of combat capabilities. (Skills being the least important - great for character identity though - though highly recommend focus on characters using different primary stats for good skill diversity).

Parties built as the book suggests should cover these bases well.

 

[CreamCloud0]

obligatory mention that thorin's party was 13 dwarf fighters and one halfling rogue.

 

[payn]

Heh... whereas I'm sure there are a lot of us who would say it was actually a very small difference with the generality of role which 5E does, and built specifically to work in a way that 4E does.

And that was always one of the problems. Some folks just didn't like the inferred information everyone had in AD&D, 2E and 3E was merely made plain in 4E. The game told us what we already knew-- they just made it a game concept rather than keep it a more narrative idea. But that's why it never bothered me what 4E did, because I saw them all as exceedingly close regardless.

Not exactly my point. Take the expert batch of classes for example, there is a lot of room in there for application. When a combat breaks out, there is no specific expert role action that is required for the combat to execute. The reliance on a set action sequence of a tactical tic-tact-toe is general instead of specific. You dont need expert, priest, fighting man to bump set spike as the class demands to engage a combat. This is an expectation in 4E and PF2. 5E is relaxed in this area which is annoying to many folks.

The issue isnt 4E was first to name the roles and highlight them in a PHB, there is a lot more nuance into application of D&D edition mechanics than that.

 

[KYRON45]

A well balanced party needs the ability to assess, adapt and overcome. Should we run? Should we set the furniture on fire? Should we bribe the opponent.? After that what you can do is how you handle the situation.

Sometimes PCs can’t handle a situation and they die. This is baked into the system. Hence there are several ways to bring them back.

It always comes down to…how hard is the DM trying to kill the party. Remember; the DM is a player too.