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

[TwoSix]

That tends to lead into the Prestige Class problem where people are eventually going to skip the required plot beats just so they can play what they want to play.

Its one of those things where one has to be conscious of how people are playing the game and embrace it. Probably the wisest design decision from WOTC that they haven't repeated that mistake in two editions.

I skip that problem by simply not having those options open and accessible to the players. Nothing is chosen, everything is negotiated.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe they should ger rid of all martials and just make them subclasses of the fighter.
Are Monk, Paladin, Barbarian and Ranger really distinct enough that they couldn't be done as subclasses for a fighter?

Yes.

What is a Monk if not an unarmed fighter?

A class that doesn't use base fighter class abilities.

What is a Paladin but a fighter who's attacks are strengthened by divine power?

A class that has several other abilities than they get from a subclass.

What is a Barbarian but a fighter that needs anger management classes?

This probably could have been done if 3e, 4e and 5e didn't exist. Now it is the same as paladin.

What is a ranger but a fighter who likes to go camping and hiking?

Same as paladin.

 

[Emberashh]

I skip that problem by simply not having those options open and accessible to the players. Nothing is chosen, everything is negotiated.

Negotiation isn't fun.

 

[Maxperson]

That doesn't "get rid" of them, it just shifts the problem to subclass. My point was that if the fighter is a problem because it is boring, shift the fun parts of the monk to the fighter and get rid of the monk. The monk has always been thematically incongruent with the rest of D&D's archetypes anyway.

Personally, my "fix" would be to create fewer classes with much broader archetypes and the mechanical tools -- feats, ability trees, etc -- to allow players to play what they want (with guidelines to build classic archetypes to help out new players).

You might as well just go classless at that point and just buy various abilities with some sort of metacurrency. Many classes is a staple of D&D and I wouldn't want to see that go away.

 

[TwoSix]

Negotiation isn't fun.

<shrug> I'm getting consistent feedback from my players of "It took a little bit to get used to, but I absolutely love my character and the abilities they're getting". It's anecdotal, of course, but they don't seem to be NOT having fun. We have multiple people ready and willing to DM, but people keep wanting to play in this campaign, so I'm confident it isn't some kind of forever DM Stockholm Syndome.

 

[TwoSix]

You might as well just go classless at that point and just buy various abilities with some sort of metacurrency. Many classes is a staple of D&D and I wouldn't want to see that go away.

I can see an argument for having a few "class container" IF they're being used to host different progressions.

Like, if a fighter class gets a +1/level bonus to weapon attacks and extra hit points per level, but the mage class gets one spell slot and extra spell known per level, but their weapon attack bonus doesn't increase.

The logic falls apart when you have single fixed progression of bonuses like 5e does. If you do that, just turn spell progression into another feat that anyone can take, and there's no need for a caster/noncaster class divide at all.

But yea, for general D&D, more specific classes is the way to go.

 

[Maxperson]

You can do that, definitely. The downside is that the more you move power budget into general selection feats, the closer you get to the cognitive weight problem of point buy.

It also creates so many trap options that 3e would look safe by comparison.

 

[Maxperson]

If we're going to compare modern D&D to a team sport, I think basketball would be a better comparison. Everyone is above average (even the shortest NBA players are taller than median height, and most are in the 99th percentile), a team is 5 people, and everyone takes the same general actions, generally being very good at one or two facets and OK at everything else. And a few players manage to roll multiple 18s and dominate play while still needing some assistance from the rest of the team.

Spud Webb wants a word.

 

[TwoSix]

It also creates so many trap options that 3e would look safe by comparison.

Also true, although I'm definitely in the "Character visualization is more important than balance for modern D&D" camp.

 

[TwoSix]

Spud Webb wants a word.

More the exception that proves the rule. Median height in the US for men is a hair over 5'9", and there have only been 25 players in the entire 75+ year history of the NBA who have been 5'9" or shorter.