6E Theory Thoughts on the balance of classes across editions (past, present, future)

[Toe Knee Nose]

A module I've never read nor run will never be a useful point of reference to me, or to anyone else who's never read nor run it.

But you are only a google search away from reading the text of virtually any module in order to compare. You know what no one has ever read or played? Anything at your table that you made. Other than your specific group of players of course. So telling me what you do at your table doesn't really tell me anything. There are so many idiosyncrasies of tables that it's just a pointless conversation.

 

[SableWyvern]

May I ask where those numbers came from?

There are lots of people who have crunched the numbers and they're pretty consistent (and easy to find with a search). I didn't record my sources previously, but here are a couple sources for you. These are both the first results I checked after a search just now, and they're both aligned with my initial numbers:

This one gives B1 a slightly higher amount, but still in the same ball park.

Here's one for B2. Note that this discussion mentions another 40k in the Keep itself that I didn't include in the original assessment -- it lists 36k in the caves, and it was treasure in the caves that seems most relevant to me. However, if you choose to add what's found in the Keep, that only means the difference between B1 and B2 is approaching yet another magnitude of difference.

Interestingly, the link discussing B2 also mentions Return to the Keep from AD&D 2nd ed, which jumps the in-cave numbers to 90k but, while B/X and 2e should have rough treasure parity, they are different editions and comparing them is outside the scope of a fair assessment per my original claims.

 

[SableWyvern]

But you are only a google search away from reading the text of virtually any module in order to compare. You know what no one has ever read or played? Anything at your table that you made. Other than your specific group of players of course. So telling me what you do at your table doesn't really tell me anything. There are so many idiosyncrasies of tables that it's just a pointless conversation.

So is it your claim that it will facilitate better conversation if, prior to engaging in a chat about balance on EnWorld, people google whatever modules @Toe Knee Nose think should be used to form a baseline, buy or pirate them, read them, and only then return to converse?

And that's meant to be easier than just having people explain their context and situation and acknowledge that we all play a little differently?

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

So is it your claim that it will facilitate better conversation if, prior to engaging in a chat about balance on EnWorld, people google whatever modules @Toe Knee Nose think should be used to form a baseline, buy or pirate them, read them, and only then return to converse?

And that's meant to be easier than just having people explain their context and situation and acknowledge that we all play a little differently?

It's my claim that endlessly playing dueling anecdotes is largely fruitless. Your table, my table and someone else's table are too different to ever really be able to talk about anything other than very broad generalities.

The fact that you insist on only giving examples from modules that are 40 years old is not exactly conducive to understanding adventure design. Believe it or not, people have actually learned a thing or two about how to design an adventure in the last forty years. I know it's an amazing thought.

Take a really simple argument - who does more damage overall, fighters or casters? To me, it's hands down the casters. It's not even close. But, that's because I count total damage, not just the single roll. So, if a fireball hits five targets for 20 points each, it just dealt 100 points of damage. Other people disagree and say that the fireball only did 20 points of damage. And around and around we go.

It's why I usually try really hard not to talk about my own home game. Because, frankly, it's pointless. Endlessly dueling anecdotes is pointless in a thread discussing GAME BALANCE ACROSS EDITIONS. I don't care what happens at someone else's table frankly. Far too often people use their personal anecdotes to "prove" that something is true. Well, it happens at my table, so, it must happen everywhere. Or, it doesn't happen at my table, so, it must never happen. I'm so incredibly tired of that song and dance.

Oh, well, at my table, we never have any combat and never roll a single die all night long, so, there's never any balance problems!!! Yeah, whatever. Oh, at my table.... on and on and on. And whatever happens at "Oh, my table" will always, always support someone's argument.

 

[Zardnaar]

There are lots of people who have crunched the numbers and they're pretty consistent (and easy to find with a search). I didn't record my sources previously, but here are a couple sources for you. These are both the first results I checked after a search just now, and they're both aligned with my initial numbers:

This one gives B1 a slightly higher amount, but still in the same ball park.

Here's one for B2. Note that this discussion mentions another 40k in the Keep itself that I didn't include in the original assessment -- it lists 36k in the caves, and it was treasure in the caves that seems most relevant to me. However, if you choose to add what's found in the Keep, that only means the difference between B1 and B2 is approaching yet another magnitude of difference.

Interestingly, the link discussing B2 also mentions Return to the Keep from AD&D 2nd ed, which jumps the in-cave numbers to 90k but, while B/X and 2e should have rough treasure parity, they are different editions and comparing them is outside the scope of a fair assessment per my original claims.

I counted up a few years ago and got over 30k.

Lvl 3 for everyone, 4th thief.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's my claim that endlessly playing dueling anecdotes is largely fruitless. Your table, my table and someone else's table are too different to ever really be able to talk about anything other than very broad generalities.

The fact that you insist on only giving examples from modules that are 40 years old is not exactly conducive to understanding adventure design. Believe it or not, people have actually learned a thing or two about how to design an adventure in the last forty years. I know it's an amazing thought.

Take a really simple argument - who does more damage overall, fighters or casters? To me, it's hands down the casters. It's not even close. But, that's because I count total damage, not just the single roll. So, if a fireball hits five targets for 20 points each, it just dealt 100 points of damage. Other people disagree and say that the fireball only did 20 points of damage. And around and around we go.

It's why I usually try really hard not to talk about my own home game. Because, frankly, it's pointless. Endlessly dueling anecdotes is pointless in a thread discussing GAME BALANCE ACROSS EDITIONS. I don't care what happens at someone else's table frankly. Far too often people use their personal anecdotes to "prove" that something is true. Well, it happens at my table, so, it must happen everywhere. Or, it doesn't happen at my table, so, it must never happen. I'm so incredibly tired of that song and dance.

Oh, well, at my table, we never have any combat and never roll a single die all night long, so, there's never any balance problems!!! Yeah, whatever. Oh, at my table.... on and on and on. And whatever happens at "Oh, my table" will always, always support someone's argument.

I dont think anyone woukd disagree AoE might let a caster deal more damage espicially 5MWD.

Focusing on 1 targets usually better and opportunity cost.
You fireball kill nothing then get attacked by 5 targets.

I count total damage so if a spellcaster does do a spicy one and I fail a lot of saces I'll announce damn 150 damage or whatever.

My main point is that every table is slightly different. I'll adapt my playstyle for newbies and Im moving away from large dungeon hacks. 30-50 rooms being large

A few are very one true way though and frame things in absolute terms. Eventually 6E will land or 5E ecosystem will collapse
It wont bother me to much as ive had my money's worth vs 3-5 year runs in 3E and 4E.

D&D will always be constrained by legacy. Class based, elves, dwarves etc probably vsncian, 6 ability scores are probably locked in.

No idea what the next shake up will look like. If I had to guess more simple and faster. Add complexity until its to much dial it back repeat.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

I dont think anyone woukd disagree AoE might let a caster deal more damage espicially 5MWD.

Focusing on 1 targets usually better and opportunity cost.
You fireball kill nothing then get attacked by 5 targets.

I count total damage so if a spellcaster does do a spicy one and I fail a lot of saces I'll announce damn 150 damage or whatever.

My main point is that every table is slightly different. I'll adapt my playstyle for newbies and Im moving away from large dungeon hacks. 30-50 rooms being large

A few are very one true way though and frame things in absolute terms. Eventually 6E will land or 5E ecosystem will collapse
It wont bother me to much as ive had my money's worth vs 3-5 year runs in 3E and 4E.

D&D eill always be constrained by legacy. Class based, elves, dwarves etc probably vsncian, 6 ability scores are probably locked in.

Oh, yeah, a 30-50 room dungeon is insane anymore. After running Out of the Abyss for the past year and a half, I'm actually looking forward to a campaign with little or no dungeon crawls for a while. Next one, I think, is going to a Chinatown inspired Waterdeep campaign. Much more talky, a lot less fighty.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh, yeah, a 30-50 room dungeon is insane anymore. After running Out of the Abyss for the past year and a half, I'm actually looking forward to a campaign with little or no dungeon crawls for a while. Next one, I think, is going to a Chinatown inspired Waterdeep campaign. Much more talky, a lot less fighty.

I've owned OotA for years. Whr ever I read it I shudder.

. Storm Kings Thunder more my jam even if execution was off.

I've been developing custom monsters for faster, shorter encounters that are somewhat scary.

 

[SableWyvern]

It's my claim that endlessly playing dueling anecdotes is largely fruitless. Your table, my table and someone else's table are too different to ever really be able to talk about anything other than very broad generalities.

I agree that duelling anecdotes are pointless. I don't believe there is any value in duelling. Instead, my position is that we accept the everyone has different experiences. As best I can tell, you insist it's a duel because you want to win and prove there's a single default method of play.

Edit to add: However, I completely reject the notion that people with different styles can't have a meaningful conversation, on the basis that there are plenty of people with different playstyles to me whom I'm able to discuss these games with without any issues at all.

The fact that you insist on only giving examples from modules that are 40 years old is not exactly conducive to understanding adventure design.

I am giving examples from the things I know about and avoiding commenting on the things I don't. I have been quite explicit about what I was referring to, and you chose to try and claim I was wrong about those old modules. Now that you recognise I'm not wrong, you are shifting goal posts and complaining I'm making the arguments I claimed to making, instead of different arguments aobut different things you might have found easier to defeat.

Believe it or not, people have actually learned a thing or two about how to design an adventure in the last forty years. I know it's an amazing thought.

I disagree that there is a general trend to improved design -- older designers were perfectly capable of making great adventures and modern ones are capable of making bad ones.

Take a really simple argument - who does more damage overall, fighters or casters? To me, it's hands down the casters. It's not even close. But, that's because I count total damage, not just the single roll. So, if a fireball hits five targets for 20 points each, it just dealt 100 points of damage. Other people disagree and say that the fireball only did 20 points of damage. And around and around we go.

Who cares if they disagree? Why do we all have to agree?

You understand why you think it's a lot. You understand why the don't.

However, with this specific example, I'm not convinced there are very many people arguing that the number of targets impacted doesn't matter. For the ones who do genuinely believe that, I'll just disregard their opinion; if they really believe that inflicting 20 points of damage on one person is the same as inflicting it on five, I don't need any kind of agreed baseline to realise their opinion carries no weight for me on this point.

It's why I usually try really hard not to talk about my own home game. Because, frankly, it's pointless. Endlessly dueling anecdotes is pointless in a thread discussing GAME BALANCE ACROSS EDITIONS. I don't care what happens at someone else's table frankly. Far too often people use their personal anecdotes to "prove" that something is true. Well, it happens at my table, so, it must happen everywhere. Or, it doesn't happen at my table, so, it must never happen. I'm so incredibly tired of that song and dance.

Oh, well, at my table, we never have any combat and never roll a single die all night long, so, there's never any balance problems!!! Yeah, whatever. Oh, at my table.... on and on and on. And whatever happens at "Oh, my table" will always, always support someone's argument.

Why do you need to view it as an argument to be won? That is the problem I'm seeing. There doesn't need to be duel if we are willing to accept our differences.

Having differences does not need to prevent communication. Refusing to accept that these differences matter very much does.

If someone doesn't have combat at their table and thus doesn't have balance problems, then that's not merely an anecdote, it's also a statement of fact. And if you have lots of combat, you can use some common sense to identify that their comments on balance probably aren't of much practical use for balancing your combat. You don't need to prove that your way or their way or some other way is normal to reach this conclusion.

I mean, if you really, really would rather talk about how D&D works when played in a way that no one actually involved in the conversation plays, and which we can't entirely be sure anyone really does, that's certainly your prerogative, but I just don't see much value in it, myself. Discussing how some imaginary baseline group might theoretically play certainly isn't going to help my game in any way, and isn't going to help me understand yours.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

It is rather funny that you would complaing about "white room analysis" then give a series of completely white room theorycrafting examples to show when you would want to use this ability. Catching a falling hostage? Seriously?

Actual play is pretty much the direct opposite of white room analysis. "Something happens, you're in place to stop it, try something' is a situation that I see come up in real games all the time. Games where only the person with the highest bonus makes skill checks also sounds extremely white room to me, since in real games that I play in that typically isn't possible or practical, especially at pick-up style tables where characters aren't heavily coordinated ahead of time.

I've definitely seen tactical mind be extremely useful in actual play, seriously.