Maybe showing my age here, but to the OP, I think this is part of the influence of video games (which I love for the record). In many RPG video games (I'm talking specifically about single player with an actual story you play through) you are often playing a character designed to be able to overcome every challenge solo, because the challenges are specifically designed to be overcome by you, solo. The developers know pretty much what you'll be able to do at any given moment of the game (no matter how open the world might feel) and so they make levels that are tailor made for your character. You may be able to select a couple other NPCs to go with you to round things out, but you can do almost everything as well or better than almost everyone else, because the whole game is about your character. Heck, a lot of the time, you get to control how the NPCs in your party level up, so they kind of feel like yours, too. People have grown to expect a game where they can do everything, and they are the one and only star. They don't get that D&D is a game where you are part of a team and everyone gets a chance to shine.
This leads to disappointment that there are things their characters just can't do as well as other characters, so they feel like they are being slighted and need to fix it.
I think adding on Xalthu's point, which I agree with... If you look at multiplayer games, many of these have PVP (player-vs-player) as a major component of the game, and in video game PVP, the goal (theoretically) is that the best player, not the best character, wins. If one type of character is dramatically better than the other types, then (a) everyone will play that type, and (b) there will be complaints against the game devs until things are "equalized."
We saw this in the dev cycle of City of Heroes (my personal favorite MMO). When the game launched, there was no PVP, and there were 5 classical archetypes, which did exactly what it sounds like - Tanker, Scrapper, Controller, Defender, Blaster. Each one was super good at what it did and not so great at other things. Tankers were incredibly good at defense and taunt, but didn't do that much damage. Blasters did tons of damage but had no defenses. PVP was completely impossible at this time.
Then the first expansion was announced, City of Villains, which would allow PVP, heroes vs villains. Before the expansion went live, they introduced an "Arena" where existing PC classes could fight each other. They quickly found out something -- Tankers, who could get themselves to 95% resistance to just about everything, plus immunity to all "mez" attacks (stuns, holds, etc.), were completely unbeatable. They could stand there being wailed on by a full group of 8 non-tank players and could not be taken down. This led to something called the "GDN" (global defense nerf) in which tanker defenses were dropped such that even after fully enhancing them max resistance was 75%. This made them survivable but not invincible. Mez was also changed so that it could be more easily "stacked" -- allowing a controller to hit the tanker with say an AOE hold followed by a single target hold and it would at least hold him for a second or two (long enough that someone else could land a blow).
Again, this was all done because otherwise, players complained that playing a Tanker was an automatic "I win" button (with Scrapper a close second), and that it was "not fair" to controllers, blasters, and defenders that just playing one of these ATs = losing the fight. In video games, the holy grail is making a game in which there are different types of characters to play but they are all mechanically equal, so the "better player" is the one who wins the fight. Of course, none of this matters if there is no PVP, but as almost all MMOs offer at least opt-in PVP, they all must work hard to balance every possible class/race/weapon/whatever combo, so that everything is equally good and the winner is the better player, not the better character.
None of these principles apply to a D&D game with a group of friends around the table... but everyone is so used to applying these principles to MMOs that pretend to be RPGs (when most of them have no right to the last 3 letters of the MMORGP acronym), and at least superficially look like RPGs in terms of how characters work and the terms used to describe such characters, that people think in terms of video game balance, and in many cases MMORPG balance, rather than pen and paper design considerations.
I've even faced this with one of my players. He has been bothered for most of his character's existence that, as a Sorcerer, it is "sub par" compared to say a Wizard. There is no wizard in our party, so why should it even matter if Sorcerers are sub-par compared to them? Yet it seems like just knowing that this is a thing bugs him... and I think it's all his years of MMO experience (even though he has as much pen and paper experience as I, if not more, and should know better). His character has been perfectly capable of holding his own and contributed equally to the party as everyone else, but it still bothers him to know that his Sorcerer is "not as good as a Wizard." Even though there isn't one in the campaign to even compare him to.
People know that table-top has a DM and yet they seem to forget it. I have had to tell my friend more than once, "Trust your DM." The DM is watching all from behind a screen -- it is not all being run by a heartless computer following lookup tables and algorithms. If the DM sees that your character is being out-shone by the party, the DM will adjust. And if he/she doesn't adjust, if you can't trust your DM, then you need to find another DM.
But the solution is not to re-write the rules to "make everyone equal." I feel like this idea, and many others being flung around both on this forum and more generally on the internet, are a means of creating rules that will stop people from being bad DMs. It's a fruitless quest, because rules cannot stop bad DMing. The only way to stop it is not to play in a game with that DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Maybe showing my age here, but to the OP, I think this is part of the influence of video games (which I love for the record).
It really isn't -- this exact type of complaining has happened all the way since the dawn of the hobby. The big difference today is that we have the internet so instead of a complaint being heard by, at most, the rest of a gaming group, it can be spread all around the world.
Because life ain’t fair, so they want D&D to be. Of course, good luck getting everyone to agree.
And games have consequences.
Take capitalism, for example. It was working fine until Monopoly came along and made people greedy and rapacious. Now here we are.
You might THINK those racial stat bonuses are harmless, but you'd be wrong.
Huh???? You are blaming the ills of the world on Monopoly or D&D character creation mechanics????
I think it is worth pointing out that Monopoly started as an anti-capitalism thing. At least that is what Stuff You Should Know told me. It was then purchased by someone and they made a total mint off of it (which is very ironic) ...
That's because Monopolies (other than Natural Monopolies) are inherently anti-capitalist. They thrive where the government intervenes in the market, allowing larger companies to squash/push out their competition......
I've even faced this with one of my players. He has been bothered for most of his character's existence that, as a Sorcerer, it is "sub par" compared to say a Wizard. There is no wizard in our party, so why should it even matter if Sorcerers are sub-par compared to them? Yet it seems like just knowing that this is a thing bugs him... and I think it's all his years of MMO experience (even though he has as much pen and paper experience as I, if not more, and should know better). His character has been perfectly capable of holding his own and contributed equally to the party as everyone else, but it still bothers him to know that his Sorcerer is "not as good as a Wizard." Even though there isn't one in the campaign to even compare him to.
Having played two separate sorcerer characters in 5E, both times without any other primary spellcasters in the party, I can say that sorcerers are objectively a boring and badly written class. The Aberrant and Clockwork sorceerers in Tasha's Cauldron are a dramatic improvement, but trying to run one using just the PHB or even with Xanathar's Guide is very frustrating. It's like trying to play a JRPG character who only has 8 slots for skills and if you want to learn the new skill you just unlocked from leveling up, you have to delete one of your current ones. Plus, unless you're not allowed to look at spells that aren't on your class's spell list for some reason, you're going to quickly notice that the sorcerer spell list is just a stripped down version of the wizard list. Meanwhile, the only spell that's exclusive to sorcerers is the underwhelming Chaos Bolt.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Maybe showing my age here, but to the OP, I think this is part of the influence of video games (which I love for the record).
It really isn't -- this exact type of complaining has happened all the way since the dawn of the hobby. The big difference today is that we have the internet so instead of a complaint being heard by, at most, the rest of a gaming group, it can be spread all around the world.
I don't know that you can really compare the two. For example, yes, paladins in 1e were far superior to fighters, but you couldn't just choose to be a paladin. You rolled 3d6 in order and needed some crazy luck to get that 17 in cha, along with some other minimums, before you could qualify, at least by RAW. So while people might have complained about them not being equal, the reason they weren't equal was because the guy across from you had good rolls and you had bad ones, so you weren't able to make as good of a character. You started with ability scores, and then saw what your options were -- for both class and race -- from there. Now its flipped. You choose your class and race and then use point buy or standard array to make the ability scores fit what you want to do (personally I still roll, but that's a whole different thread). Everybody has a pretty close stat array, but now some people get upset when someone else's character can do things they can't, even though they're starting from the same baseline of scores.
In those first two editions, the idea that someone else might have a better character (simply because they had hot die when they were rolling stats) was baked into the character generation. Now, its more assumed that the different characters will be closer to equal, which now that I'm writing this, makes me wonder if it actually might be another factor for the issues the OP was discussing.
That's because Monopolies (other than Natural Monopolies) are inherently anti-capitalist. They thrive where the government intervenes in the market, allowing larger companies to squash/push out their competition......
I think he is suggesting that the GAME of Monopoly created rapacious and greedy people. That, of course, is so far wrong it is not even worth discussing, other than Monopoly was published in 1935.
In those first two editions, the idea that someone else might have a better character (simply because they had hot die when they were rolling stats) was baked into the character generation.
But again... if you had a good DM, then the DM would help the player with the poor rolls out, for example, by giving out magic items particularly suitable to that PC. The wizard with the low Dex and not allowed to wear armor, and d4 hp with no "you take average rolls" rule in the book (though many of us housruled something) would be given something to boost that AC fairly quickly by any DM worth his or her salt.
My point is that a good DM surveys the situation and makes adjustments to suit the table. If you have a good DM you don't need to max out your stat points or worry about balance between one PC and another because the DM is there to keep track of things and make sure everyone has a good time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
That's because Monopolies (other than Natural Monopolies) are inherently anti-capitalist. They thrive where the government intervenes in the market, allowing larger companies to squash/push out their competition......
I think he is suggesting that the GAME of Monopoly created rapacious and greedy people. That, of course, is so far wrong it is not even worth discussing, other than Monopoly was published in 1935.
I think he was making a joke about art imitating life and life imitating art...
While I think a lot of the original post was just blustering, my two cents is that subclasses have brought us to a point where classes have lost their identity. Monks and wizards can swing swords...there seems to be a way to build every class out of every other class. It’s almost as if classes don’t mean so much anymore. And with the “optional class features” in Tasha’s the lines between classes (like cleric and paladin) have been ridiculously blurred.
There’s nothing wrong with a classless system, but D&D is not that and is never going to be. I personally wish it would stop masquerading as one.
For me, the problem is that the powergamers are reaping exactyl what they sow: because they always want more power, every time they propose some homebrew, even simple reskinning, DMs who don't want to have to deal with their addiction and its nasty side effects on the game find it easier just to say No! And they are right to do so.
Being concerned about game balance and powergaming aren't the same thing -- in many cases they're opposed.
Because life ain’t fair, so they want D&D to be. Of course, good luck getting everyone to agree.
And games have consequences.
Take capitalism, for example. It was working fine until Monopoly came along and made people greedy and rapacious. Now here we are.
You might THINK those racial stat bonuses are harmless, but you'd be wrong.
Nah. People just like the idea that everyone is on a level during character creation as a means of deluding themselves that their character is the best it can be and their not “behind” the other members of the party. But honestly, it doesn’t really matter very much. Once the game actually starts and characters progress any number of things could start to affect any such “objective balance” because DMs and Players are not infallible. Not to mention, part of a DM’s job is to think of cool stuff (Magic Items and Boons) for the Party. If the DM isn’t considered what the Characters Strengths and Weaknesses, the Players’ feelings (good and/or bad) about their PC’s performance, and how all of everything else and how it relates to those PCs, then they will inevitably cause any theoretical balance out over the course of the campaign anyway. And even when the DM is actively attempting to maintain a feeling of balance for everyone, mistakes get made. After all, only human.
No one is asking for class 1 to be the same as class 2, just balanced in power to a certain degree (Insert Thanos meme here). Some people dont care about this (I think people like Lyxen and Vince, but I could be wrong) but would they really object of everything WAS balanced? It wouldn't change the game in any way apart from making it slightly more fun for our side.
The big problem is that a lot of people think we are complaining about specific features, like 'the ranger's favoured enemy is worse than the paladins divine smite, so the ranger sucks and I wont play it.' A lot of the ranger defenders I see (Me as well to an extent) try to talk about all the other features and how they are as good as divine smite and so on, and the ranger dislikers will say that the paladins have better features in general.....etc.
It all devolves into two different arguments at the same time: The ranger is objectively and numerically worse/similar and you can/cant still have fun with the ranger it is/is not that bad. The problem is, both sides would benefit from the outcome of one. If you guys LOVE the ranger so much thematically and you think it is balanced would the ranger buff we think is needed to pull it in line be so terrible? Or would that make it too powerful?
Genuinely interested, so if I could get a nice response instead of my head bitten off by a shadow demon from the Abyss that would be lovely (Also a first, so I wont get my hopes up)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
People want things equal as it's no fun if you pick an option which sounds cool, but when it comes to actual combat they turn out to be an escort mission for the rest of the party.
Likewise it's no fun if one guy is far more powerful than the rest of the party and just does everything, leaving everyone else feeling like bystanders rather than players.
please note that, as long as people are having fun and not harming others, there is no wrong way to play Dungeons & Dragons.
If a group want to "powergame" and their fun is in optimising characters as much as possible, then that's great. Another group may want their D&D to be grim and realistic, while another still may handwave all of the realism rules to focus on high adventure. They're all valid and fun ways to enjoy a game together.
Yes, there is friction when people want/expect different things from a game, which is solved by playing it with others who share your views.
Please realise that when anyone here says, "A game isn't fun if...." what they are saying is more correctly, "I personally don't enjoy a game if...." - it's all opinion based upon one's own experiences and preferences.
On these forums, it is not acceptable to label others as being bad or wrong for having different ideas on what fun looks like for them.
That's because Monopolies (other than Natural Monopolies) are inherently anti-capitalist. They thrive where the government intervenes in the market, allowing larger companies to squash/push out their competition......
I very much disagree. Becoming a monopoly is the ultimate aim of every company: to do what they do so well that they obliterate the competition. This is why governments have to step in with rules to stop monopolies from forming or being abused. Unrestrained capitalism will lead to powerful monopolies, as companies grow in size and strangle the competition, using their power and size to attack competitors and block innovative new businesses from challenging them.
Monopolies are not only capitalist, they are the ultimate expression of capitalism.
Balance generally makes gameplay more fun. Perfect balance however, the type that was attempted in 4e, can be detrimental. Unbalanced gameplay can also be unfun even if their isn't any pvp in a campaign.
I started playing D&D when I was pretty young. I played with friends who were around my age, and we didn't have the greatest grasp of how everything worked, but we could play. The first character I ever played in a campaign was a Hunter Ranger. I took point buy and variant human, leaving me with a pretty solid stat array and feat. It wasn't a terrible character and combat, and was fun to play when it worked.
One of my friends rolled for stats and got insanely lucky. They were playing a Mountain Dwarf Barbarian, and had nineteens and twenties in some stats. He completely over shadowed my ranger and the paladin in terms of fighting ability. He had very high HP and AC, and very good DPR with a greataxe. With Rage and Bear Totem, he was nearly unkillable.
So while I enjoyed playing my ranger, sometimes combat could be disappointing. Even my best hits, with colossus slayer and sharpshooter stacking dealt around as much as the barbarian did every turn, and it had much more AC and HP than I did. Favored Enemy didn't seem to due much at all either. All in all, while it was still a fairly fun game, it could have been more fun if it was balanced.
That was all just a roundabout way of saying that unbalanced characters can make gameplay less fun. I'm not advocating for perfect balance, but it is annoying seeing Wizards get new tricks with every book and Sorcerers and Rangers be left in the dust.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
please note that, as long as people are having fun and not harming others, there is no wrong way to play Dungeons & Dragons.
If a group want to "powergame" and their fun is in optimising characters as much as possible, then that's great. Another group may want their D&D to be grim and realistic, while another still may handwave all of the realism rules to focus on high adventure. They're all valid and fun ways to enjoy a game together.
Yes, there is friction when people want/expect different things from a game, which is solved by playing it with others who share your views.
Please realise that when anyone here says, "A game isn't fun if...." what they are saying is more correctly, "I personally don't enjoy a game if...." - it's all opinion based upon one's own experiences and preferences.
On these forums, it is not acceptable to label others as being bad or wrong for having different ideas on what fun looks like for them.
Please respect the opinions of others.
Thank you!
Oh, the irony, and wild danger, of telling a mod they are wrong in a comment where they say no one is wrong, but here goes:
You comment is valid ONLY under the strict condition of where birds of feather do indeed get to flock together. While your comment is reasonable under laboratory conditions, it falls apart in the real world. How many situations allow for a DM to select players of a similar mindset, or conversely, players to select a particular DM? Every table should have a session 0 but even then players may or may not grasp what the DM is saying, or believe that their playing style will mesh just fine with that table. That is simply human nature.
By saying "Everyone is OK, and every playstyle valid", that allows for Powergamers and Rule of Cool players to think their playstyle is the norm, and just fine. It is not. Those styles are highly grating and inevitably leads to players or DM's making player moves, but only after the fact, after multiple sessions of annoyance for the player in question, the DM, and/or he other players at the table.
At the game cafe that I play at, (or did, thanks Covid), I have the reputation of being the gritty realist / RAW guy. One other DM is a total Rule of Cool Guy, and the others fall in between. Players there do have the luxury of "finding their level", since they in theory can move between tables. But the amount of people that do, is tiny. I left playing (it is pretty incestuous, a number of people DM one table and player at others) at one guy's table because his DM style grated on me. He was furious, and did not speak to me for months, even though we saw each other every week. The players simply seem to stick with the table they first sat down at, or originally had room for them.
Also, at this cafe, all DM's have a standing policy that if there is room at their table, they will take walk-ins. We want the cafe's business to thrive. But no DM has a sign sitting at their table that says "Really tough DM who thinks Tasha's char creation is an abomination" or "DM that thinks dropping 100 feet onto a flying dragon's head and making a called shot to stick a sword in its eye is super cool and allowed". We all want the walk-in's to enjoy their experience, and become regulars, but a walk-in who reads your comment then shows up to play with the mindset "My ultra-optimized wizard using Tasha's new char creation that has a starting Int of 20) will not enjoy the experience, nor will I, nor will the other players at my table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Maybe showing my age here, but to the OP, I think this is part of the influence of video games (which I love for the record). In many RPG video games (I'm talking specifically about single player with an actual story you play through) you are often playing a character designed to be able to overcome every challenge solo, because the challenges are specifically designed to be overcome by you, solo. The developers know pretty much what you'll be able to do at any given moment of the game (no matter how open the world might feel) and so they make levels that are tailor made for your character. You may be able to select a couple other NPCs to go with you to round things out, but you can do almost everything as well or better than almost everyone else, because the whole game is about your character. Heck, a lot of the time, you get to control how the NPCs in your party level up, so they kind of feel like yours, too. People have grown to expect a game where they can do everything, and they are the one and only star. They don't get that D&D is a game where you are part of a team and everyone gets a chance to shine.
This leads to disappointment that there are things their characters just can't do as well as other characters, so they feel like they are being slighted and need to fix it.
I think adding on Xalthu's point, which I agree with... If you look at multiplayer games, many of these have PVP (player-vs-player) as a major component of the game, and in video game PVP, the goal (theoretically) is that the best player, not the best character, wins. If one type of character is dramatically better than the other types, then (a) everyone will play that type, and (b) there will be complaints against the game devs until things are "equalized."
We saw this in the dev cycle of City of Heroes (my personal favorite MMO). When the game launched, there was no PVP, and there were 5 classical archetypes, which did exactly what it sounds like - Tanker, Scrapper, Controller, Defender, Blaster. Each one was super good at what it did and not so great at other things. Tankers were incredibly good at defense and taunt, but didn't do that much damage. Blasters did tons of damage but had no defenses. PVP was completely impossible at this time.
Then the first expansion was announced, City of Villains, which would allow PVP, heroes vs villains. Before the expansion went live, they introduced an "Arena" where existing PC classes could fight each other. They quickly found out something -- Tankers, who could get themselves to 95% resistance to just about everything, plus immunity to all "mez" attacks (stuns, holds, etc.), were completely unbeatable. They could stand there being wailed on by a full group of 8 non-tank players and could not be taken down. This led to something called the "GDN" (global defense nerf) in which tanker defenses were dropped such that even after fully enhancing them max resistance was 75%. This made them survivable but not invincible. Mez was also changed so that it could be more easily "stacked" -- allowing a controller to hit the tanker with say an AOE hold followed by a single target hold and it would at least hold him for a second or two (long enough that someone else could land a blow).
Again, this was all done because otherwise, players complained that playing a Tanker was an automatic "I win" button (with Scrapper a close second), and that it was "not fair" to controllers, blasters, and defenders that just playing one of these ATs = losing the fight. In video games, the holy grail is making a game in which there are different types of characters to play but they are all mechanically equal, so the "better player" is the one who wins the fight. Of course, none of this matters if there is no PVP, but as almost all MMOs offer at least opt-in PVP, they all must work hard to balance every possible class/race/weapon/whatever combo, so that everything is equally good and the winner is the better player, not the better character.
None of these principles apply to a D&D game with a group of friends around the table... but everyone is so used to applying these principles to MMOs that pretend to be RPGs (when most of them have no right to the last 3 letters of the MMORGP acronym), and at least superficially look like RPGs in terms of how characters work and the terms used to describe such characters, that people think in terms of video game balance, and in many cases MMORPG balance, rather than pen and paper design considerations.
I've even faced this with one of my players. He has been bothered for most of his character's existence that, as a Sorcerer, it is "sub par" compared to say a Wizard. There is no wizard in our party, so why should it even matter if Sorcerers are sub-par compared to them? Yet it seems like just knowing that this is a thing bugs him... and I think it's all his years of MMO experience (even though he has as much pen and paper experience as I, if not more, and should know better). His character has been perfectly capable of holding his own and contributed equally to the party as everyone else, but it still bothers him to know that his Sorcerer is "not as good as a Wizard." Even though there isn't one in the campaign to even compare him to.
People know that table-top has a DM and yet they seem to forget it. I have had to tell my friend more than once, "Trust your DM." The DM is watching all from behind a screen -- it is not all being run by a heartless computer following lookup tables and algorithms. If the DM sees that your character is being out-shone by the party, the DM will adjust. And if he/she doesn't adjust, if you can't trust your DM, then you need to find another DM.
But the solution is not to re-write the rules to "make everyone equal." I feel like this idea, and many others being flung around both on this forum and more generally on the internet, are a means of creating rules that will stop people from being bad DMs. It's a fruitless quest, because rules cannot stop bad DMing. The only way to stop it is not to play in a game with that DM.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It really isn't -- this exact type of complaining has happened all the way since the dawn of the hobby. The big difference today is that we have the internet so instead of a complaint being heard by, at most, the rest of a gaming group, it can be spread all around the world.
Huh???? You are blaming the ills of the world on Monopoly or D&D character creation mechanics????
I think it is worth pointing out that Monopoly started as an anti-capitalism thing. At least that is what Stuff You Should Know told me. It was then purchased by someone and they made a total mint off of it (which is very ironic) ...
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-stuff-you-should-know-26940277/episode/how-monopoly-works-29467670/
That's because Monopolies (other than Natural Monopolies) are inherently anti-capitalist. They thrive where the government intervenes in the market, allowing larger companies to squash/push out their competition......
Having played two separate sorcerer characters in 5E, both times without any other primary spellcasters in the party, I can say that sorcerers are objectively a boring and badly written class. The Aberrant and Clockwork sorceerers in Tasha's Cauldron are a dramatic improvement, but trying to run one using just the PHB or even with Xanathar's Guide is very frustrating. It's like trying to play a JRPG character who only has 8 slots for skills and if you want to learn the new skill you just unlocked from leveling up, you have to delete one of your current ones. Plus, unless you're not allowed to look at spells that aren't on your class's spell list for some reason, you're going to quickly notice that the sorcerer spell list is just a stripped down version of the wizard list. Meanwhile, the only spell that's exclusive to sorcerers is the underwhelming Chaos Bolt.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't know that you can really compare the two. For example, yes, paladins in 1e were far superior to fighters, but you couldn't just choose to be a paladin. You rolled 3d6 in order and needed some crazy luck to get that 17 in cha, along with some other minimums, before you could qualify, at least by RAW. So while people might have complained about them not being equal, the reason they weren't equal was because the guy across from you had good rolls and you had bad ones, so you weren't able to make as good of a character. You started with ability scores, and then saw what your options were -- for both class and race -- from there. Now its flipped. You choose your class and race and then use point buy or standard array to make the ability scores fit what you want to do (personally I still roll, but that's a whole different thread). Everybody has a pretty close stat array, but now some people get upset when someone else's character can do things they can't, even though they're starting from the same baseline of scores.
In those first two editions, the idea that someone else might have a better character (simply because they had hot die when they were rolling stats) was baked into the character generation. Now, its more assumed that the different characters will be closer to equal, which now that I'm writing this, makes me wonder if it actually might be another factor for the issues the OP was discussing.
I think he is suggesting that the GAME of Monopoly created rapacious and greedy people. That, of course, is so far wrong it is not even worth discussing, other than Monopoly was published in 1935.
But again... if you had a good DM, then the DM would help the player with the poor rolls out, for example, by giving out magic items particularly suitable to that PC. The wizard with the low Dex and not allowed to wear armor, and d4 hp with no "you take average rolls" rule in the book (though many of us housruled something) would be given something to boost that AC fairly quickly by any DM worth his or her salt.
My point is that a good DM surveys the situation and makes adjustments to suit the table. If you have a good DM you don't need to max out your stat points or worry about balance between one PC and another because the DM is there to keep track of things and make sure everyone has a good time.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think he was making a joke about art imitating life and life imitating art...
While I think a lot of the original post was just blustering, my two cents is that subclasses have brought us to a point where classes have lost their identity. Monks and wizards can swing swords...there seems to be a way to build every class out of every other class. It’s almost as if classes don’t mean so much anymore. And with the “optional class features” in Tasha’s the lines between classes (like cleric and paladin) have been ridiculously blurred.
There’s nothing wrong with a classless system, but D&D is not that and is never going to be. I personally wish it would stop masquerading as one.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Being concerned about game balance and powergaming aren't the same thing -- in many cases they're opposed.
Nah. People just like the idea that everyone is on a level during character creation as a means of deluding themselves that their character is the best it can be and their not “behind” the other members of the party. But honestly, it doesn’t really matter very much. Once the game actually starts and characters progress any number of things could start to affect any such “objective balance” because DMs and Players are not infallible. Not to mention, part of a DM’s job is to think of cool stuff (Magic Items and Boons) for the Party. If the DM isn’t considered what the Characters Strengths and Weaknesses, the Players’ feelings (good and/or bad) about their PC’s performance, and how all of everything else and how it relates to those PCs, then they will inevitably cause any theoretical balance out over the course of the campaign anyway. And even when the DM is actively attempting to maintain a feeling of balance for everyone, mistakes get made. After all, only human.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Here is how I see it.
No one is asking for class 1 to be the same as class 2, just balanced in power to a certain degree (Insert Thanos meme here). Some people dont care about this (I think people like Lyxen and Vince, but I could be wrong) but would they really object of everything WAS balanced? It wouldn't change the game in any way apart from making it slightly more fun for our side.
The big problem is that a lot of people think we are complaining about specific features, like 'the ranger's favoured enemy is worse than the paladins divine smite, so the ranger sucks and I wont play it.' A lot of the ranger defenders I see (Me as well to an extent) try to talk about all the other features and how they are as good as divine smite and so on, and the ranger dislikers will say that the paladins have better features in general.....etc.
It all devolves into two different arguments at the same time: The ranger is objectively and numerically worse/similar and you can/cant still have fun with the ranger it is/is not that bad. The problem is, both sides would benefit from the outcome of one. If you guys LOVE the ranger so much thematically and you think it is balanced would the ranger buff we think is needed to pull it in line be so terrible? Or would that make it too powerful?
Genuinely interested, so if I could get a nice response instead of my head bitten off by a shadow demon from the Abyss that would be lovely (Also a first, so I wont get my hopes up)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
People want things equal as it's no fun if you pick an option which sounds cool, but when it comes to actual combat they turn out to be an escort mission for the rest of the party.
Likewise it's no fun if one guy is far more powerful than the rest of the party and just does everything, leaving everyone else feeling like bystanders rather than players.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersHey folks,
please note that, as long as people are having fun and not harming others, there is no wrong way to play Dungeons & Dragons.
If a group want to "powergame" and their fun is in optimising characters as much as possible, then that's great. Another group may want their D&D to be grim and realistic, while another still may handwave all of the realism rules to focus on high adventure. They're all valid and fun ways to enjoy a game together.
Yes, there is friction when people want/expect different things from a game, which is solved by playing it with others who share your views.
Please realise that when anyone here says, "A game isn't fun if...." what they are saying is more correctly, "I personally don't enjoy a game if...." - it's all opinion based upon one's own experiences and preferences.
On these forums, it is not acceptable to label others as being bad or wrong for having different ideas on what fun looks like for them.
Please respect the opinions of others.
Thank you!
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I very much disagree. Becoming a monopoly is the ultimate aim of every company: to do what they do so well that they obliterate the competition. This is why governments have to step in with rules to stop monopolies from forming or being abused. Unrestrained capitalism will lead to powerful monopolies, as companies grow in size and strangle the competition, using their power and size to attack competitors and block innovative new businesses from challenging them.
Monopolies are not only capitalist, they are the ultimate expression of capitalism.
Balance generally makes gameplay more fun. Perfect balance however, the type that was attempted in 4e, can be detrimental. Unbalanced gameplay can also be unfun even if their isn't any pvp in a campaign.
I started playing D&D when I was pretty young. I played with friends who were around my age, and we didn't have the greatest grasp of how everything worked, but we could play. The first character I ever played in a campaign was a Hunter Ranger. I took point buy and variant human, leaving me with a pretty solid stat array and feat. It wasn't a terrible character and combat, and was fun to play when it worked.
One of my friends rolled for stats and got insanely lucky. They were playing a Mountain Dwarf Barbarian, and had nineteens and twenties in some stats. He completely over shadowed my ranger and the paladin in terms of fighting ability. He had very high HP and AC, and very good DPR with a greataxe. With Rage and Bear Totem, he was nearly unkillable.
So while I enjoyed playing my ranger, sometimes combat could be disappointing. Even my best hits, with colossus slayer and sharpshooter stacking dealt around as much as the barbarian did every turn, and it had much more AC and HP than I did. Favored Enemy didn't seem to due much at all either. All in all, while it was still a fairly fun game, it could have been more fun if it was balanced.
That was all just a roundabout way of saying that unbalanced characters can make gameplay less fun. I'm not advocating for perfect balance, but it is annoying seeing Wizards get new tricks with every book and Sorcerers and Rangers be left in the dust.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Oh, the irony, and wild danger, of telling a mod they are wrong in a comment where they say no one is wrong, but here goes:
You comment is valid ONLY under the strict condition of where birds of feather do indeed get to flock together. While your comment is reasonable under laboratory conditions, it falls apart in the real world. How many situations allow for a DM to select players of a similar mindset, or conversely, players to select a particular DM? Every table should have a session 0 but even then players may or may not grasp what the DM is saying, or believe that their playing style will mesh just fine with that table. That is simply human nature.
By saying "Everyone is OK, and every playstyle valid", that allows for Powergamers and Rule of Cool players to think their playstyle is the norm, and just fine. It is not. Those styles are highly grating and inevitably leads to players or DM's making player moves, but only after the fact, after multiple sessions of annoyance for the player in question, the DM, and/or he other players at the table.
At the game cafe that I play at, (or did, thanks Covid), I have the reputation of being the gritty realist / RAW guy. One other DM is a total Rule of Cool Guy, and the others fall in between. Players there do have the luxury of "finding their level", since they in theory can move between tables. But the amount of people that do, is tiny. I left playing (it is pretty incestuous, a number of people DM one table and player at others) at one guy's table because his DM style grated on me. He was furious, and did not speak to me for months, even though we saw each other every week. The players simply seem to stick with the table they first sat down at, or originally had room for them.
Also, at this cafe, all DM's have a standing policy that if there is room at their table, they will take walk-ins. We want the cafe's business to thrive. But no DM has a sign sitting at their table that says "Really tough DM who thinks Tasha's char creation is an abomination" or "DM that thinks dropping 100 feet onto a flying dragon's head and making a called shot to stick a sword in its eye is super cool and allowed". We all want the walk-in's to enjoy their experience, and become regulars, but a walk-in who reads your comment then shows up to play with the mindset "My ultra-optimized wizard using Tasha's new char creation that has a starting Int of 20) will not enjoy the experience, nor will I, nor will the other players at my table.