D&D (2024) What Should D&D 2024 Have Been +

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
To me it feels like there is a range where it doesn't matter, but at some point it's painful?

If that wasn't true for a lot of people I don't think there would be so many things about what to do if the person rolling thinks the stats are too low.

(Are you good if you have no stats greater than 8 and your friend has none less than 16? )
I think the no stats greater than 8 is a unique case and what many would consider a hopeless character and outside what I mean since no DM is going to make someone play that. To expand on what I mean, if after rolling you have stats that support your PC, it doesn't matter if another has better stats than you. I'd be fine with my wizard having a 14 intelligence (what I consider the minimum for a 5e main stat) as opposed to my friends 20 intelligence.

In some other editions, you could have a fun experience with all 11s, I had almost that for an OSE character fairly recently with my highest stat being constitution at 13. Plenty of others had 16s to 18s (actual rolls, it was uncanny the number of 18s we saw in that game).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ECMO3

Hero
Truth be told, I think everyone, DM and player alike, cares about balance to a limited extent; but the point at which they stop caring is reached and exceeded long before anything like 4e's all balance all the time design rears its head.

I think most players do not think about it at all. Not even 1 little bit. I think about it far more when I am on this forum than I do at any point playing or DMing or even discussing the game.

As long as players fell that what they're playing is playable most of the time, that's good enough.

Agreed but all classes are playable all the time. There are characters that are not playable, but that is because of abnormally poor rolls or really bad build choices (class not being one of those bad choices).

TBH I think there are generally more "bad choices" with strong classes than vice versa. It is pretty difficult to build an unplayable Fighter or Monk as long as you have decent (14+) scores in the important abilities. You can easily build a bad Wizard or Sorcerer by choosing objectively bad spells.

As a DM I do pay some attention to overall long-term balance between classes, in order that they're all vaguely of the same appeal to players.

I don't and even if I did pay attention to class imbalance, the imbalance at the table due to ability rolls, poor build choices or simply bad in game choices would render that concern about class balance irrelevant in play.

Over the past two years, the PCs we have had die in a game I was playing or DMing were: a Cleric, two Barbarians (one was resurrected), a Bard, two Artificers, Two Wizards (one was resurrected), a Monk, a Rogue and a Paladin (resurrected). *

Most of those PCs died between levels 1 and 9. There is not much correlation between class strength and in-game success in that relatively large sample. If class balance really mattered, you would expect the list of characters killed would be dominated by Monks, Barbarians, Fighters and Rogues as they are the weaker classes at those levels and Roges, Fighters and Barbarians are among the most common classes played.

* Note the list does not include characters who went down but did not die and it does not include one Fighter who sacrificed himself at the end of a campaign to close a portal to elemental water from the other side.
 
Last edited:

I like the idea of breaking the tie between ability score and skill. Removing it wholesale allows for it to be obvious that a player can make a case for using alternate abilities for a skill check, such as intelligence for a persuasion check.

This allows classes more freedom to be creative in out-of-combat interactions, and has little impact on the system as a whole. There are signs this was an implied option with how the 2014 PHB refers to skill checks, such as "Dexterity (stealth) check." The word "dexterity" seems redundant if this was meant as a single ability skill.

All that is needed as a paragraph is the PHB stating that this is how skills work. The big cost is that your skill modifiers are no longer pre-calculated on the character sheet. The benefit seems to be a huge broadening of options in role-play and exploration scenarios.
 

ECMO3

Hero
then screw you, did not think it needed repeating ;)

So screw others at the table playing the game with you (or who want to play the game with you)? This is not conducive to a fun, safe, welcoming environment.

because of their playstyle / theme, not because of them being too weak or too strong... it is perfectly ok to not like an archetype

No actually, it is not because of their archetype it is because of their mechanics, if the mechanics are good I can mold any class into the theme I want. I don't like Barbarians because they can't cast spells or use heavy armor while raging. I don't like Druids because I don't like wild shape (or polymorph or other spells that due similar) and can't wear decent armor at all. I also don't particularly like the Druid spell options (both for thematic and mechanic reasons), but if they had more spell options I would still dislike the class. Those mechanics are central parts of those two classes that can not effectively be built around and that is why I don't like those classes.

Further why would it be "perfectly ok" to like or not like a class because of its archetype but not ok to like it or dislike it because it is powerful or weak? Why should one player rule over the kind of character another player wants to play.
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
I like the idea of breaking the tie between ability score and skill. Removing it wholesale allows for it to be obvious that a player can make a case for using alternate abilities for a skill check, such as intelligence for a persuasion check.

This allows classes more freedom to be creative in out-of-combat interactions, and has little impact on the system as a whole. There are signs this was an implied option with how the 2014 PHB refers to skill checks, such as "Dexterity (stealth) check." The dexterity seems redundant if this was meant as a single ability skill.

All that is needed as a paragraph is the PHB stating that this is how skills work. The big cost is that your skill modifiers are no longer per-calculated on the character sheet. The benefit seems to be a huge broadening of options in roleplay and exploration scenarios.
This is already a rule. How would you reinforce it?
 

This is already a rule. How would you reinforce it?
If it is, you have to make it more clear. Such as slight alterations to many of the character sheets. I believe DnDBeyond's character sheet uses the default ability score when calculating a skill bonus and roll. And as far as I know, there is no way to alter the roll to another ability score.

Essentially the PHB hints that it works one way, and character sheets strongly suggest it works another.
 

mamba

Legend
Further why would it be "perfectly ok" to like or not like a class because of its archetype but not ok to like it or dislike it because it is powerful or weak? Why should one player rule over the kind of character another player wants to play.
it's not that I am interest in ruling over someone's character, but if the only thing you like about e.g., the Wizard is how strong the class is and pick it because of that, then to me that indicates that the Wizard is probably too strong.

You should pick the class because you like its archetype and / or mechanics, not because it is OP relative to the others. If strong or weak enters the picture, then from my perspective the classes are not sufficiently balanced.
 



Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I don't and even if I did pay attention to class imbalance, the imbalance at the table due to ability rolls, poor build choices or simply bad in game choices would render that concern about class balance irrelevant in play.
Moment to moment balance within an individual combat or scenario or session doesn't much matter to me.

But I do look at what classes and species people choose to play over the long run, and if one seems unduly popular or neglected I start asking myself why. Sometimes it's just a passing trend - e.g. one player has found great success with a class-species combination so now everybody wants one - but sometimes there's deeper underlying issues where a class or species is simply too powerful or not powerful enough; and that's when the fix-it tools come out*. :)

I've got stats from our games going back for decades and covering well over 1000 characters, that allow me to see such trends and disparities.

* - if I ever jump to a new campaign (or completely reboot my current one from scratch, whichever) I've a list of such fixes I need to make; some very minor, some rather significant.
Over the past two years, the PCs we have had die in a game I was playing or DMing were: a Cleric, two Barbarians (one was resurrected), a Bard, two Artificers, Two Wizards (one was resurrected), a Monk, a Rogue and a Paladin (resurrected). *

Most of those PCs died between levels 1 and 9. There is not much correlation between class strength and in-game success in that relatively large sample. If class balance really mattered, you would expect the list of characters killed would be dominated by Monks, Barbarians, Fighters and Rogues as they are the weaker classes at those levels and Roges, Fighters and Barbarians are among the most common classes played.

* Note the list does not include characters who went down but did not die and it does not include one Fighter who sacrificed himself at the end of a campaign to close a portal to elemental water from the other side.
Good data, but still a small sample size. Take that list and expand it to include (at least) every 5e game you've DMed or played in and you'll be more able to pick up on any trends.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top