D&D (2024) Symmetric Balance vs Asymmetric Balance.

[Asisreo]

With comparisons to AC, HP, and DPR between builds being a fairly high source of contention when talking about balance, I feel like the community is split between what they want from Asymmetric Balance vs Symmetric Balance.

Edit: Fingers slipped to upload prematurely.

Asymmetric Balance is such that one character might have higher AC and HP, but lower damage while another might have vice-versa.

Symmetric Balance is such that all characters have similar statistics between each class, but approach them in different ways. Example: Fighters might have equally high damage as wizards, but fighters are doing it with single-target attacks and wizards are doing it with AoE (this is a theoretical and not how it works in 5e).

 

[Scribe]

Asymmetric Balance is such that one character might have higher AC and HP, but lower damage while another might have vice-versa.

While this is what I prefer, it requires the game be balanced in a way to make all the various unbalanced (asymmetric) approaches equally valid and useful.

If the game is theoretically balanced around 3 pillars, and a class is intended to excel at 1 but suck in the rest, well if the game doesnt focus on that one pillar equally or at all, then that class sucks.

For example.

 

[mellored]

Asymmetric Balance is such that one character might have higher AC and HP, but lower damage while another might have vice-versa.

That's kinda the point of classes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I definitely prefer asymmetrical balance. Cantilever those game mechanics!

I also kinda despise minimalism and utilitarianism and adore gothic maximalism, though, which I feel relates to the preference for asymmetry, even if only correlatively.

Like in 4e D&D, which I loved, there are symmetrical elements, but the wizard could create persistent effects that actively changed the battlefield by existing, and the fighter could hit really hard and make it hard to circumvent the fighter.

That isn’t symmetrical, but it is balanced, because the wizard is easy to gank without a defender around, and the fighter is an excellent defender that can keep the wizard alive.

It also made the game fun, because every class played so incredibly differently from other classes, depending on build/power/feat choices.

 

[payn]

What is really splitting is preference. I think most folks like to argue their preference is objectively better, but both are valid design choices. Folks often neglect looking at them separately and seeing the better and worse implementations of each type. Things get real dicey when you have both symmetrical and asymmetrical in the same system.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The whole thing is equally compounded by the fact that so much of the game does not even involve the supposed "balanceable" game mechanics... but comes out of the actual players coming up with ideas and making choices for what their characters do. And that is not something the rules can account for.

No amount of balancing of the mechanics can help if some players just happen to think of smart ideas and make strong choices while other players just get pulled along by the rest of the group. Now hopefully those players being pulled along are doing so because that is just how they prefer to play... but if not-- if some players wished or wanted to make more substantial choices in their party's activities but just don't come up with ideas that the other players want to go along with... that's when balance can get thrown off as well. Balance of playtime and balance of spotlight and balance of activity.

Are Wizards actually overpowered mechanically-speaking... or is it just that they often get played by stronger players who have the creativity and ingenuity to use all the tools at the Wizard's disposal? Is that something that can really be measured or taken into account? And if you depower the Wizard because smart players can overwhelm a table... does that makes things worse when regular players play Wizards?

It's so hard to really judge.

 

[Tony Vargas]

With comparisons to AC, HP, and DPR between builds being a fairly high source of contention when talking about balance, I feel like the community is split between what they want from Asymmetric Balance vs Symmetric Balance.

The definition of balance I've encountered that I've found the most useful, goes something like this: a game is better-balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both viable and meaningful.

Edit: Fingers slipped to upload prematurely.

Asymmetric Balance is such that one character might have higher AC and HP, but lower damage while another might have vice-versa.

I'm afraid that sort of balance would tend to present a lot of less viable to non-viable choices, depending on context.

D&D has certainly tried for balancing that way a lot over the decades, and has consistently failed. You can look back over D&D discussions, and find the Martial/Caster Gap, LFQW, 5MWD, and Fighter SUX discussions longer than there's been an internet.

Symmetric Balance is such that all characters have similar statistics between each class, but approach them in different ways. Example: Fighters might have equally high damage as wizards, but fighters are doing it with single-target attacks and wizards are doing it with AoE (this is a theoretical and not how it works in 5e).

The danger here is that choices will turn out to be less meaningful. If you all ultimately just degrade the big bad's hp at the same rate, what difference does it make who is playing what?

D&D only really tried something that might have been classed as symmetric balance once, in 4e. Like 3e, 4e put all classes on the same exp level chart, and like, 5e BA, 4e put all characters on the same basic level progression as far as d20 bonuses were concerned. Where it really mattered tho, was resources, and for the first 2 years, at least, all classes had a rough parity in unlimited, n/day and n/encounter resources. 4e avoided making class choice meaningless only at a very high price in development effort (and retaining some asymmetry!). Each class had hundreds of unique powers - the fighter and wizard, each had more powers than 5e has spells, in total. And Source radically differentiated sorts of powers, the wizards spells were implement powers that attacked no-AC defenses, the fighters' exploits, weapon powers, that mostly attacked AC, and so forth...
But, arguably, even 4e had a deeply asymmetrical aspect in formalized Roles, that differentiated classes within a Source, as well - ironically, it wasn't anything new, D&D had always had distinct duties for the "Big 4" - fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and thief - it had just never managed to make them more or less equally important before.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The only problem with asymmetrical balance is that, bluntly, few GMs are all that good at keeping all the balls in the air of strength in different areas, and even game systems that avowedly encourage you to do so usually end up failing at it in one fashion or another. And that's before you even get into the issue of not all fields of activity are equally group-involvement-supporting (which can passively discourage taking too much screen time up with them).

 

[Aldarc]

D&D has certainly tried for balancing that way a lot over the decades, and has consistently failed. You can look back over D&D discussions, and find the Martial/Caster Gap, LFQW, 5MWD, and Fighter SUX discussions longer than there's been an internet.

WotC used a mix of asymmetric and symmetric balance in 4e. It was asymmetric between roles but it was more symmetric within roles, though different classes performed their role in different ways or had different sub-niches (e.g., paladin: defender > leader). This is a pretty good approach that works fairly well in MOBAs, broadly speaking.

 

[Li Shenron]

The only problem with asymmetrical balance is that, bluntly, few GMs are all that good

I am largely in favor of asymmetrical balance because I am one of them.

But really I don't think we're few. And certainly, anyone can be a good DM.

However, once symmetrical balance seems to become the wanted target, I think people will always look at discrepancies, the more the balance is apparently increased, the smaller discrepancies will be looked at. I have the feeling that there is hardly ever a level of symmetric balance which makes people satisfied, any leftover asymmetry will be scrutinized, and the game still perceived as not yet balanced enough. All of which IMHO shifts the attention away from actually playing. Increasing symmetrical balance also generally comes at the expense of diversity, making the experience of play more similar across different characters and campaigns. It's not like the end of the world, chess is perfectly balanced and always the same game every time you play, and yet I am pretty such that chess lovers feel like each game is different and worth playing... but it's not the kind of feeling I want from an RPG, I already have tons of tabletops for that.

I like asymmetrical balance and even pretty to the extreme (in fact I don't mind RPGs where the Fighter only fights and kicks ass in combat three times any other character) also because it requires that the DM plays the game as well, and not just works as an accountant of it.