D&D 5E How much should 5e aim at balance?

Manbearcat · Sep 16, 2012

There are two goals that proper balance/mechanical quality control work toward realizing:

1) Inter-character resource parity:

Balance helps realize this goal by ensuring that each characters' deployable resources at the table will perform at, or near, a mean level of performance. This achieves two ends;

- Each character will be able to meaningfully contribute and therefore each player will have the opportunity for their character to be expressed as a legitimate protagonist within the fiction.

- The DM does not have to plan encounters/conflicts, or outright campaign arcs, around the potency (or impotency) of one (or more particular characters) due to the vast resource disparity. There is little more maddening to a player than when their martial character (who is supposed to be a legitimate protagonist) cannot meaningfully contribute in a climactic fight because he cannot hit a BBG or cannot dodge a BBG because in order to challenge "the party" you must derive numbers (AC, to hit, damage) for that BBG that pose a challenge to a martial character whose numbers are out of whack (AC, to hit). Obviously there are plenty of orthogonal cases as well that are not purely tangible statistics driven but intangible resource driven; eg fighter vs druid, all martial characters vs generalist wizard.

2) Consistency and predictability of encounter/conflict output relative to PC output:

The DM will be able to predictably extrapolate how each character's potential resource deployment, and the group in the aggregate, will affect combat and non-combat encounters specifically and campaign arcs generally. This, of course, works toward the end of the DM being able to consistently compose dynamic/interesting conflicts and plot-device for the PCs to engage with...rather than boring walk-throughs, climactic fights/scenes that fall flat, or accidental, DM-driven TPKs (or worse yet, when DMs feel they must "save the game" because they didn't reliably predict the difficulty of an encounter and put the campaign at risk due to their lack of foresight).

Caveats for each:

1 does not need need to be expressed through homogenization (it just makes it "easier" to constrain the upper and lower bounds of PC output). If properly and rigorously playtested and quality controlled, "problem-children" resources should be readily identifiable and thus manicured/manipulated upward or downward so their performance is "in-line". You can have a vast swath of inter-class diversity (mechanically and within the fiction) while still having predictable performance and relative parity.

2 does not mean that "of-level" encounters are mandated and there MUST BE NO DEVIATION OR NO SOUP FOR YOU. It is not a "world-building mandate". Having a base-line and a tutorial on how to create base-line challenges just allows for predictable challenge output vs PC output. Using that established base-line as a reliable metric, the DM can then compose as many deadly or walkthrough challenges as they wish. They can compose a world where TPKs lurk around every bend or where PC groups stomp monster faces in a Monty Haul Candyland. World-building is up to their playstyle preferences.

Magil · Sep 16, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
Well anything's possible. The question isn't whether it's possible. The question is whether it's universal.

I think we just have had too different an experience with 3.5 to compromise on much, but I don't think that whether or not an issue is universal is at all relevant, since nothing will be "universal" across all tables. The question is just how prevalent and obvious it is. And of course my belief is that even if the vast majority of PCs never get past level 3, that doesn't excuse levels 4-20 having massive, glaring issues.

Lanefan · Sep 16, 2012

Hussar said:
That's an interesting POV.

If rules are written with the express intent that they won't be used as written, what's the point of using written rulesets in the first place?

Mostly because ever since the days of 1e it's been either obviously mentioned (1e) or vaguely assumed (everything since) that what's written in the books are merely guidelines, to be amended by each individual DM to suit that person/group's desired style.

The books are a somewhat malleable frame on which to build your game.

Hussar said:
Why not go freeform and be done with it?

Because that doesn't give you the framework to build on; you have to build the frame as well, and that's a lot more work.

Hussar said:
Defending mechanics based on the fact that you can change the mechanics is fine to be honest. We all change mechanics. What blows me away is that people apply that thinking to earlier editions but 4e must be run by RAW and only by RAW and nothing but RAW without a single moment of introspection. My http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/328517-changes-interpretation.html thread shows that nicely.

A few possible reasons for this.

1. 4e is pretty tightly designed, from what I can tell, and it's hard to say what changing something -here- might do to other things -there- and -there-.

2. Newer DMs aren't as willing to dive in and change things because it just isn't in their background to do so, which is fair enough.

3. The design philosophy as expressed in the DMGs has really changed. In 1e it was pretty much "here's the best I've got for a frame but I as writer expect you to change things up to make it your own" while in the more recent editions it's been more "here's the packaged game, have fun".

5e so far seems to be really going back to the 1e "make it yours" idea, which is the main reason why I'm still interested in it.

Lanefan

pemerton · Sep 17, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
The polymorph rules are indeed problematic; and the concept of animal companions and the leadership feat and similar rules that go beyond your character are also problematic. Both are fixable

<snip>

What percentage of games go past level 6? Any edition? Even before accounting for E6? Not that I think all games past 6 are broken, but that's already a niche.

Have I misunderstood, or are you saying that 3E is the "most balanced" version of D&D because (i) some notoriously broken bits, like druid animal companions, and wildshape and polymorph, are fixable, and (ii) it is mostly unbroken below level 7?

That seems to me a concession that it's a broken game, with its character build rules (most of which pertain to PCs above level 6) and its adventure paths (at least half of which are aimed at PCs above level 6) irrelevant.

Also, by these criteria I'm wondering what the imbalance is in 4e that renders it worse-balanced than 3E?

pemerton · Sep 17, 2012

Lanefan said:
4e is pretty tightly designed, from what I can tell, and it's hard to say what changing something -here- might do to other things -there- and -there-.

I don't think this is true. 4e is tight, yes - but transparent. The consequences of changes - to "to hit" numbers, to damage, to resting requirements - are pretty predictable.

Lanefan said:
The design philosophy as expressed in the DMGs has really changed. In 1e it was pretty much "here's the best I've got for a frame but I as writer expect you to change things up to make it your own" while in the more recent editions it's been more "here's the packaged game, have fun".

I don't think this is true either. Like Gygax, the 4e designers clearly have confidence in the quality of their rules. But they also have a one-page tutorial "Creating House Rules" (p 189). The key passage on that page is probably this one:

The D&D rules cannot possibly account for the variety of campaigns and play styles of every group. If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights.

I don't feel that this is radically different from the view presented in the classic D&D books.

Ahnehnois · Sep 17, 2012

pemerton said:
Have I misunderstood, or are you saying that 3E is the "most balanced" version of D&D because (i) some notoriously broken bits, like druid animal companions, and wildshape and polymorph, are fixable,

Well yes. I wouldn't call animal companions overpowered though, and polymorph abilities really have to be consciously abused to be a problem.

and (ii) it is mostly unbroken below level 7?

Sure.

Then again, it's not bad above level 7 either.

That seems to me a concession that it's a broken game,

It isn't. The basic structure of ability scores/races/classes/skills/feats is fine. The notion of base attack, base saves, and hit points being involuntary increased with level is problematic, but no more so that in any other version of D&D. Of course there are some specific rules that are broken. That doesn't mean the game itself is.

with its character build rules (most of which pertain to PCs above level 6) and its adventure paths (at least half of which are aimed at PCs above level 6) irrelevant.

In general, most of those rules are fine, most groups can play most characters at most levels doing most things in most styles without any real problems. As any d20 player knows, even the best of us fail 5% of the time, and you're talking about the worst 5% of spells and magical abilities. Judging 3e solely by a few poorly written and abusable spells is not appropriate. That would be like looking AL vs NL use of the DH and the advantage it grants certain teams in interleague play and concluding that baseball is broken. Similarly, a few overpowered wild shape forms does not mean the entire system is such.

Also, by these criteria I'm wondering what the imbalance is in 4e that renders it worse-balanced than 3E?

Again; it's the basic structure, the AEDU system itself, not the individual powers or classes (mainly because it's used for PCs in a highly standardized way, but not in that same way for monsters). The standard modifier also leads to nonsensical issues; whereas in the rest of D&D a high level wizard somewhat dubiously gets better at attacking people and gains more hit points, a 4e character gets better at everything, making high level characters too much improved over lower level ones. The tripling of hit points for 1st level PCs and the existence of minions also really breaks the hit point system; player characters are far too good in that respect.

slobster · Sep 17, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
Again; it's the basic structure, the AEDU system itself, not the individual powers or classes (mainly because it's used for PCs in a highly standardized way, but not in that same way for monsters). The standard modifier also leads to nonsensical issues; whereas in the rest of D&D a high level wizard somewhat dubiously gets better at attacking people and gains more hit points, a 4e character gets better at everything, making high level characters too much improved over lower level ones. The tripling of hit points for 1st level PCs and the existence of minions also really breaks the hit point system; player characters are far too good in that respect.

Well, those aren't "unbalanced" in the way that he meant the term. That is, they don't lead to mismatches in the power levels of one PC versus another of the same level. You might be talking past his point a bit there.

Ahnehnois · Sep 17, 2012

slobster said:
Well, those aren't "unbalanced" in the way that he meant the term. That is, they don't lead to mismatches in the power levels of one PC versus another of the same level. You might be talking past his point a bit there.

Well, that's exactly the issue. "Balance" doesn't mean "two player characters played in a particular way built using the same parameters in a narrow set of circumstances will perform a small set of functions with approximately equal success". Everything in the rules is subject to balance. For example, one of the of the most imbalanced parts of D&D is the economy; the prices of PC gear relative to NPC wage earnings, sales practices and exchange rates, supply and demand of things that are ostensibly rare, etc. That has nothing to do with PC class abilities.

Even if we were just talking about whether a 10th level human wizard and a 10th level half-orc barbarian in an anachronistic dungeon crawl scenario could contribute to killing a serious of repetitive and easy monsters, I'd still take 3e over any other version of D&D based on transparency and flexibility, but for talking about how all the rules elements relate to each other, how balanced the characters are in the world, not just compared to each other in a particular type of scenario, then it's really not even close. There are plenty of non-D&D games that I suspect are better and there is certainly a ton of room for improvement.

pemerton · Sep 17, 2012

[MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION], I think you are using the word "broken" in a way that is very different from most of the other recent posters in the thread. Or, at least, you are not using it to refer to imbalances in mechanical effectivenss, which is what I (and I think many if not most others) am talking about.

slobster · Sep 17, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
Well, that's exactly the issue. "Balance" doesn't mean "two player characters played in a particular way built using the same parameters in a narrow set of circumstances will perform a small set of functions with approximately equal success". Everything in the rules is subject to balance. For example, one of the of the most imbalanced parts of D&D is the economy; the prices of PC gear relative to NPC wage earnings, sales practices and exchange rates, supply and demand of things that are ostensibly rare, etc. That has nothing to do with PC class abilities.

See, I wouldn't call the economy unbalanced, so long as each player has a similar opportunity to exploit it. It might be unrealistic, broken, illogical, nonsensical, and any number of other bad things, but I use the term "unbalanced" to denote an excess (or lack) of power compared to other options or other PCs in a similar position.

Falling damage in D&D isn't unbalanced, even if you find it completely unsatisfying. It affects pretty much everyone in the same way.

I do consider druid shapechanging with natural spell to be unbalanced, because it allows them to choose a form that is more powerful in melee than the fighter while retaining spellcasting abilities that the fighter has no chance of matching. That is a large difference in power between two player options (one chose to play a fighter, the other a druid), and so I consider that unbalanced.

Even if we were just talking about whether a 10th level human wizard and a 10th level half-orc barbarian in an anachronistic dungeon crawl scenario could contribute to killing a serious of repetitive and easy monsters, I'd still take 3e over any other version of D&D based on transparency and flexibility, but for talking about how all the rules elements relate to each other, how balanced the characters are in the world, not just compared to each other in a particular type of scenario, then it's really not even close. There are plenty of non-D&D games that I suspect are better and there is certainly a ton of room for improvement.

I'm trying not to wade into the edition X vs. edition Y aspect of the discussion, so no comment here.