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

[DinoInDisguise]

I think the argument for balance in a hobby where we cooperate and many roll for abilities is an interesting thought.

What does the game gain from a more perfect balance? More character options? According to the statistics we have with classes, that isn't the case. So what are we gaining by trying to "balance" a cooperative game? And if balance is thought necessary, does that mean rolling for stats should be relegated to house rule?

So I just don't see the end goal or the overall gain from a pursuit of balance here.

 

[ECMO3]

Balance does matter. 4e had some problems and balance itself was not one of them. The designers approach to balance, purely balancing numbers, boxing all powers, making everything looks the same, was the problem.

IMO balance itself is not a "problem" in any of the versions. Many versions are wildly imbalanced and they were still both fun and successful I see very little evidence that the imbalance hurt other versions, to include 1E. There is no evidence at all that better class balance make for a more fun or more commercially successful game.

Further, my point with that post is balance did not seem to do much for 4E. You can argue that other aspects were just bad and that is why it was disliked, but if balance is important it would seem that would have counted for something, yet it is the least popular version by quite a long shot.

Also I would argue that striving for balance drives you to less flavorful options. I think the story is better when my Lightning Bolt is more powerful and encounter ending than the Fighter swinging a sword.

In the 2024 playtest many of the mechanics that afforded better balance were widely panned and disliked by the community.

 

[ECMO3]

Every spell (including Fireball!) that's rated sky blue or gold should be nerfed slightly. WIth many more spell options roughly comparable, we will see more varied builds, approaches and strategies. This is a good thing.

Fireball is a weak spell compared to the best spells. It should not be rated sky blue.

I personally don't like the way Summon spells are fixed. I would have loved an approach that still lets players pick critters from the Monster Manual, with all the variety that entails. Summon spells with genericized stat blocks is a pale shadow to that.

I do agree with this, I would offer that it should be specific creatures, not "summon any fey of less than CRX"

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think the argument for balance in a hobby where we cooperate and many roll for abilities is an interesting thought.

What does the game gain from a more perfect balance? More character options? According to the statistics we have with classes, that isn't the case. So what are we gaining by trying to "balance" a cooperative game? And if balance is thought necessary, does that mean rolling for stats should be relegated to house rule?

So I just don't see the end goal or the overall gain from a pursuit of balance here.

What we gain is fewer negative play experiences.

Lots of people want to play berserkers. Lots of people have played them and been disappointed in what they do. Disappointing players because they feel tricked or useless is a bad thing. Lots of people in 3.X wanted to play rogues and were disappointed that wizards were better at the sneakiness.

Disappointing people through badly balanced rules is a bad thing. (And rolling for stats I believe is relegated to an optional rule).

 

[mamba]

Also I would argue that striving for balance drives you to less flavorful options. I think the story is better when my Lightning Bolt is more powerful and encounter ending than the Fighter swinging a sword.

than one sword strike, sure, than the Fighter overall, why?

So now your Wizard is better at fighting than the Fighter and better outside of combat by a mile, why even have the Fighter class then, so they can carry your extra spellbooks?

In the 2024 playtest many of the mechanics that afforded better balance were widely panned and disliked by the community.

which mechanics are those, because I am not sure I saw them… the in-step subclass progression? That says nothing about relative power, and yes, I would have preferred getting that

Something not getting 70%+ is also not ‘widely panned’, getting <= 20% maybe would be, but it did not do that

 

[Neonchameleon]

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*.

The thing is this isn't always about power. I can tell you in order of preference what my favourite character classes in D&D 5e are - but the link between them isn't the obvious one.

1. Warlock
2. Artificer
3. = Ranger, Bard, Sorcerer (sorcerer last because the pre-Tashas's class is so flawed)
4. Wizard

This has nothing to do with power or even being arcane casters. What it's about is that all these classes have actual, meaningful character growth choices after third level other than a feat every few levels (that will probably be an ASI anyway).

When two life clerics level up what they gain is exactly the same. They gain the same class features, and the ability to prep the same spells which they can switch over on an 8 hour rest. Once you have chosen "Life Cleric" (at L1 no less) you're basically advancing on rails unless you go outside your class entirely. Two Echo Knights likewise. Meanwhile if you've picked Warlock you decide what spells and what invocations you gain each time you level up. Two warlocks probably both have Eldritch Blast (I've played ones without). But their spells and invocations are almost never the same - and can be picked to reflect the local situation and what they have learned. Wizards are behind rangers, sorcerers, and bards because their spells are equipment as much as they are a part of who they are. It would take longer for wizards to swap over.

And I am very much looking forward to the base sorcerer getting enough rather than cripplingly few spell slots.

 

[Lanefan]

I do agree with this, I would offer that it should be specific creatures, not "summon any fey of less than CRX"

I prefer how 1e does it, where the type of what you summon is random from a list in the DMG and the number you get is also random. That way you don't just get to pick the most suitable creature type for the task at hand.

 

[Horwath]

Every spell that the various guides out there rates red should be significantly improved, or redone entirely. (Yes I know there is value of having subpar spells you can give to high level caster monsters, but a spell every guide agrees is red is simply a waste of PHB space)

yes, fix them to the level of sky blue or at least blue level

Every spell (including Fireball!) that's rated sky blue or gold should be nerfed slightly. WIth many more spell options roughly comparable, we will see more varied builds, approaches and strategies. This is a good thing.

see above, not needed to get reduced in power unless they break the game. then probably best option is to remove them.
fireball in not top tier spell, might not even be 2nd best tier as most damage spells are "yellow"

I personally don't like the way Summon spells are fixed. I would have loved an approach that still lets players pick critters from the Monster Manual, with all the variety that entails. Summon spells with genericized stat blocks is a pale shadow to that.

I like Tasha's summons and they should be buffed slightly, number of attacks equal to half spell level but ROUND UP! that gives more attacks at spell levels 3,5(half caster max),7 and 9(reason to use 9th level spell for summons).
It also leaves room for 1st level summon spells. I.E. summon warrior spirit, summon animal spirit
reduce 4th level summons to 3rd level and 6th level summons to 5th level.
And duration of 12h(so sorcerers can have max utility out of extend spell), it still uses Conc so extended duration could also serve as power control on casters.

Regarding feats I believe the official info already suggests fairly significant fixes, so nothing to say there.

we will see, hopefully for better.

Lastly, reinstate the goal of pricing magic items using a utility-based rational approach. No more picking price numbers out of thin air, or make prices relate to rarity - rarity has no connection to how useful an item is to help an adventurer survive adventures.

yes, 100%

 

[Lanefan]

The thing is this isn't always about power. I can tell you in order of preference what my favourite character classes in D&D 5e are - but the link between them isn't the obvious one.

1. Warlock
2. Artificer
3. = Ranger, Bard, Sorcerer (sorcerer last because the pre-Tashas's class is so flawed)
4. Wizard

This has nothing to do with power or even being arcane casters. What it's about is that all these classes have actual, meaningful character growth choices after third level other than a feat every few levels (that will probably be an ASI anyway).

When two life clerics level up what they gain is exactly the same. They gain the same class features, and the ability to prep the same spells which they can switch over on an 8 hour rest. Once you have chosen "Life Cleric" (at L1 no less) you're basically advancing on rails unless you go outside your class entirely.

That's fine with me. Maybe it's my 1e-like background, but I don't care if two characters of the same species and class are mechanically the same underneath; as in theory it's easy enough to make them play very differently through personality, characterization, in-game ethics (a.k.a. alignment), and so forth, and difference in play is what matters to me.

I can also happily live without the added complexity all those choices bring.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's fine with me. Maybe it's my 1e-like background, but I don't care if two characters of the same species and class are mechanically the same underneath; as in theory it's easy enough to make them play very differently through personality, characterization, in-game ethics (a.k.a. alignment), and so forth, and difference in play is what matters to me.

I can also happily live without the added complexity all those choices bring.

It's not so much about "mechanically the same underneath" as "How they grow in power and ability is entirely predetermined by choices they made a long time ago".

This is different in 1e because 90% of your power comes from Loot, whether it's your fighter's arsenal or your wizard's spells found. In 1e how they grow is determined by what they've done (until you give Job the Fighter all of his elder brother Rob's old gear, much of which which he inherited from his elder brother Bob). But 5e deprecates magic items and loot.

As for complexity, I find that in play warlocks are the least complex casters outside levelling up time; you don't have to juggle spell levels and spell slots.