Balance. Why do we need it?

[Psyren]

Those are entirely legitimate concerns. I know them and I share some of them. But I discuss them without falling back on a nice-sounding but ultimately false catch-phrase. Yes, 4E is rife with elements that focus on gameplay first, and portraying a world second. That's not the same thing as a massively-multiplayer computer game. 4E's gamist elements are, once again, a direct result of the late-3E metagame and overzealous attempts to fix it.

I treat "4E is a tabletop MMO" like using "Mary Sue" towards a character someone doesn't like, or "Deus Ex Machina" towards a development they don't like. Or, for that matter, fans of other games calling new editions of the game... D&D-like. Happens a lot among Polish Warhammer Fantasy RPG grognards. Either way, it's a scary-sounding phrase that condemns the thing you dislike, but doesn't contribute to a discussion.

Well fine then, it's shorthand. Shorthand you don't particularly like, but now you've demonstrated that you do know what the edition's critics are actually getting at, so the rest is pedantry.

Why the almost?

Because (first-party) dev time is finite, and having to watch these threads occasionally pop up like recurring weeds is ultimately a worthwhile price to pay if it means more content for the design philosophies I actually enjoy.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that it is impossible to patch 3.5 to substantially improve class balance, that it is inadvisable, or that doing so would make it in your mind "a different game"? And in either case, why do you say that?

It's definitely possible - both 4e and 5e proved that if nothing else. The issue becomes more about what is lost in the attempt, and what we're willing to give up.

Frankly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say in general. We all agree (I think) that 3.5 has severe class imbalances. Many people feel that this detracts from their enjoyment of the game. You do not. Nobody here is going to convince anyone else that they are wrong about what they enjoy.

You're right, arguing about it probably is futile, but arguing on the internet when we can't actually play the game is a big part of why we're all here anyway.

You mention preferring 3.5's diverse mechanics to 4e's relatively homogeneous mechanics. I strongly agree. I wouldn't want to sacrifice that diversity for balance. But we're not talking about some specific proposed balance fix. Do you believe that any increase in class balance must necessarily result in unacceptably homogenous mechanics? If, hypothetically, you saw a variant that improved class balance without sacrificing diversity, how would you feel about it? Would you prefer it, prefer the less-balanced rules, or have no strong preference? If you would actively prefer the less-balanced rules, then why?

Two responses here:

a) No, I'm not opposed to it. You're correct though that I'm pessimistic that it can be done. Are you familiar with the Snowbluff Axiom from these boards?

b) The best attempt I've seen thus far (that I might actually get to play due to adoption) might very well be Starfinder. By eliminating spells above 6th level and iteratives, I think it's brining the classes more in line with one another without the mechanical homogenization of 4th or the nebulous mother-may-I style of 5th. That is however a preliminary reaction, and I'm looking forward to continuing to ingest material to see if that first impression holds up.