The mismatch between class specific abilities

Quote from sabin76 >>

Quote from jl8e >>

And so on. One of the good game design features of a class-based system is that the classes don't have to be structured similarly.

Just to +1 this point. Symmetry makes balance easy, but it doesn't really make gameplay interesting. One of the ways of making a fun and engaging game that is replayable is to make the gameplay as asymmetrical as possible while maintaining balance. Netrunner was a great example of this in the cardgame space. The two sides play very differently, but games were mostly balanced and that added a lot to the fun of the game.

 
I generally agree, but I take some issue with the word balance in these kinds of conversations. I do not think it is necessarily a wrong word, but it does have an implication of equality I think sone folks focus too much on and can be interpreted in a broad number of ways (not saying you are personally doing that, to be clear!).

I think with D&D classes, the goal is less about “maintaining balance” and more about “maintaining unique utility.”  In a collaborative game where everyone is (mostly) working toward the same goal, it is less important for everyone to be truly “balanced”, and more important for everyone to feel their unique utility contributed something meaningful that no one else could have really done.  I think one can reasonably call that a type of “balance” (and I am sure I have used the term that way myself), but it is a type of balance that is a bit hard to see as it is more abstract than something like raw damage output.

I think that gets sort of to the heart of this thread - the abilities are not equal because they are not designed to be mirrors. They’re designed to promote unique ability - with hollowtpm above doing a decent job walking trough those unique class feels and why they have different resource balances to obtain different unique utilities.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from sabin76 >>

Quote from jl8e >>

And so on. One of the good game design features of a class-based system is that the classes don't have to be structured similarly.

Just to +1 this point. Symmetry makes balance easy, but it doesn't really make gameplay interesting. One of the ways of making a fun and engaging game that is replayable is to make the gameplay as asymmetrical as possible while maintaining balance. Netrunner was a great example of this in the cardgame space. The two sides play very differently, but games were mostly balanced and that added a lot to the fun of the game.

 
I generally agree, but I take some issue with the word balance in these kinds of conversations. I do not think it is necessarily a wrong word, but it does have an implication of equality I think sone folks focus too much on and can be interpreted in a broad number of ways (not saying you are personally doing that, to be clear!).

I think with D&D classes, the goal is less about “maintaining balance” and more about “maintaining unique utility.”  In a collaborative game where everyone is (mostly) working toward the same goal, it is less important for everyone to be truly “balanced”, and more important for everyone to feel their unique utility contributed something meaningful that no one else could have really done.  I think one can reasonably call that a type of “balance” (and I am sure I have used the term that way myself), but it is a type of balance that is a bit hard to see as it is more abstract than something like raw damage output.

I think that gets sort of to the heart of this thread - the abilities are not equal because they are not designed to be mirrors. They’re designed to promote unique ability - with hollowtpm above doing a decent job walking trough those unique class feels and why they have different resource balances to obtain different unique utilities.

Wholeheartedly agree, and edited my post a few times to try and better get that across.

Balance in D&D is like Balance in swords. It changes meaning depending on a million factors and two things that are the antithesis of each other can be called proper balance depending on the sword, but everyone thinks it is one thing. A Han-Jian and Krigsmesser have wildly different balance points, but both are good swords.
When it comes to classes, you have to look at the class as a whole, not feature by feature to check "Balance" just like you have to with a sword. What is it for? How do you use it? How well does the wielder know how to use it? 
In other words, the term is a mess.

We need a better term, or a clearer communal definition of what it means.

I also need a short rest. ( Why yes i am a Warlock player, how did you know :P )

"Balance" is a buzzword that's lost all meaning in TTRPG talk..

Because having to balance ANY Wizard to Hunter Ranger would have happened already if it was meant literally.