D&D 5E Balance of Power Problems in 5e: Self created?

Tony Vargas said:

What, and 'metagame?' ;P

Click to expand...

I don't see it as metagaming at all when - in a setting that is known to have adventuring Clerics who can among other things heal people up - 5 warrior types about to go out in the field realize in-character that they don't have a healer and go out and (try to) recruit or hire one.

Seriously, though, a party /could/ be comprised of common-origin-story types - not a lot of fighters in a party of Hogwarts alumni, for instance. I mean, could in genre/fiction/theory, in D&D, not until 3e at the earliest... And, really, in 5e it's only the 'martial' party that's non-viable. (Though, /really/, in 5e the DM has the latitude to tailor things to the party - any party, no matter how far ahead of or behind the expected curve).

Click to expand...

The all-warrior party has always had the biggest hill to climb at anything other than very low level (except maybe in 4e?). Even in 1e an all-Cleric party could rock hard, an all-Thief party could stealth their way through a lot of adversity, and an all-MU party could get it done as long as nothing got too close to them - and even if it did provided they had Monster Summoning or good illusions.

Same goes for 3e, really, though an all-Wizard party would be comparitively better off than its 1e version I think.

Lan-"and any adventurers with any field experience at all are going to recognize that a well-rounded group probably has elements of stealth, arcane magic, divine magic, and brawn"-efan

Tony Vargas said:

Arcane casters include Bards (support, skill expertise), wizards, sorcerers, warlock (sustained DPR), and, for that matter EK & AT. Even without the last two (which can probably be excluded on the grounds they're defacto multiclass), that could be a pretty diverse set of capabilities...

I quite like leaving out magic items all but entirely in 5e, but it's very nearly a new thing, and only applies to items. 3.5, at some point, (I think, I haven't been able to find the source, someone who remembers 3.5 better than I can chime in, perhaps) introduced 'inherent bonuses' which tracked the expected magical bonuses the game expected from wealth/level, 4e retained that option (and also had more power/versatility concentrated in class relative to items in the first place), so they could both run relatively low magic in theory (no magic remained out of the question for 3.x which required it for healing and the like, 4e did no-magic - or even all-martial pretty in an otherwise normal setting - seamlessly thanks to the presence of the Warlord). But neither /assumed/ no items, they could just be adapted to it. 5e was at least purported to be designed w/o considering items, in the playtest communications. I'm not sure it entirely came through on that - but it can't really handle a no-magic setting & party, HD and other non-magical healing resources help out of combat, but it's not enough).
As to the classic game, it assumed magic, it assumed the Cleric for healing and wizard for spells and so forth in the classic 'niche protection' scheme, obviously, and it assumed items to keep the non-caster viable at higher levels - at least, Gygax came right out and said that it did in the DMG when discussing the magic items tables, FWTW.

So gunning for no assumed items was actually kinda a new thing with 5e. Not a huge thing, not entirely new, but a thing.

Click to expand...

If you are running low-magic there are two possibilities. Either the group contains sufficient spell casters to handle an adventure type or the adventure can't be run for the group. There are three ways to have a spell caster in the group. It could be a PC, a PC resource like a cohort or henchman, or an NPC associating with the group such as a hireling or faction support. Higher magic campaigns introduce the possibility the PCs have or can acquire magic items to provide the required capabilities to non-spell casters.

3.5 had Inherent bonuses in addition to WBL; they were in effect yet another bonus type that was gained through wishes/books. 3.5 magic item acquisition went off the rails for providing breadth of capability. It wasn't WbL that was the culprit; it was the quadratic cost formula, magic item economy, and the cost of the 'big 6' items. This was driven home to me when the groups first found a couple of quite decent 'breadth' items and promptly sold them, split the cash and worked to improve primary stat/attack bonus/AC/saving throws.

4e introduced inherent bonuses in place of magical attack bonuses. 4e came the closest to having martial be comparable in the other pillars though it did it by reducing the magical effects available (and then bolstered them with more free form effects with DM fiat combined with page 42/skill challenge results) as much as by bolstering martial abilities (especially if you used a playstyle similar to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]).

MostlyDm said:

In a sandbox environment, the entire issue is moot. They would engage with events on their own terms, and the idea of there being some highly time sensitive quest that they are expected to complete doesn't really wash.

Click to expand...

Actually, time sensitivity doesn't go away under a sandbox. If they want to rescue the townsfolk before the next full moon which takes place in three days, being in sandbox doesn't change the time constraint; it simply means the players make the choice to engage or not.

Having run many sandbox-style low-magic games, I just don't see the need for DM largesse you describe. In my experience, spells simplify solutions to problem, or obviate the need for certain solutions (e.g. teleport obviates the need for good mounts)... but non-magic classes can still solve a huge variety of problems by doing things "the hard way."

Click to expand...

In a low-magic game with no or limited casters in the party, the group simply cannot go on certain adventures: exploring the underwater ruins (water breathing), surviving the heat-drenched volcano rim (fire resistance), discovering the mural is actually a subtle magic portal to somewhere else (detect magic), getting 300 miles across a sea in less than a week, are all beyond their capability for some very simple examples and thus adventures/goals requiring such activities can't be introduced/followed up by the group.

In a sandbox this is less of an issue since the group can choose what they do. If the DM in that environment wants to give the group the option to go on a certain adventure the he needs to offer largesse by introducing sufficient resources to offset the low magic capability of the group -- just like you inserted the magic potions which were exactly what the group needed to continue to the next stage of the adventure.

And for the record... I don't think the water-breathing potions thing is actually largesse or deus ex machina or anything like that. If a BBEG has an underwater base, and has humanoid minions, they need some way of accessing it. It's totally logical that his outposts in humanoid lands would include caches of such potions.

Click to expand...

1) he may not have humanoid minions
2) he may have humanoid minions but they can provide their own method of water breathing a la spell casting or inherent ability
3) he may have he may have humanoid minions and he provides a method to survive underwater a la aboleth, nixie, or spell casting when they visit
4) he may have humanoid minions but they don't travel to his underwater base at all because it is beyond them

So it is only "natural" if the adventure designer decides to make it natural either because it fits the initial conception or the designer recognises the need to introduce a mechanism to allow the group to proceed.

Magical item collection is de-emphasized as a requirement, as a player entitlement that the DM is required to maintain... but there's tons of support for magic items. And if anything, the game is more encouraging of magical wondrous items, and is primarily cautious about magic weapons, armor, flat pluses, etc.

The only reason they de-emphasized magic items is so that magic items actually feel meaningful and beneficial, and so that running a low magic game doesn't hurt the game math. You're spinning these as downsides, but they're pure positives compared to 3e and 4e, and precisely the same approach taken in earlier editions.

Hireling support doesn't need mechanical subsystems, in my opinion. But you can look at published adventures like Out of the Abyss to see that 5e still encourages and supports the use of NPC allies.

Also worth mentioning that even the "martials" often have magic and supernatural abilities. There's only 1 class, 2/3 subclasses of another class, 2/3 subclasses of another class, and 1/3 subclasses of another class that fundamentally lack spells. A tiny fraction of the overall class pool.

Click to expand...

NPC allies are a form of DM largesse. The group cannot do 'X' where X requires spell casting unless the DM provides a source of 'X' -- either through item(s) or by introducing others outside the group who are willing to provide the 'X' required. Spell casting heavy groups simply do not have that dependency.

As I stated before, the way D&D has previously attempted to handle the disparity is through skewed magic item generation, and cohort/henchman acquisition. DM have often introduced factions/friendly NPCs. Other games have opted for pervasive magic, non-magical versions of preternatural effects via herbalism/alchemy, providing 'mythic' capabilities to PCs, or limiting what magic can do such that spell casting doesn't become a required key to open an adventure's lock.

Nagol said:

If you are running low-magic there are two possibilities. Either the group contains sufficient spell casters to handle an adventure type or the adventure can't be run for the group. There are three ways to have a spell caster in the group.

Click to expand...

"'Sufficient' spell casters to handle an adventure type" in a low magic game is likely to be zero.
i.e. Adventures in a low magic game are not going to require options that the party doesn't have.

I doubt that any DM is going to require something to complete the adventure that the party that they are running the adventure for does not have access to.

Lanefan said:

Wait...does your party, on meeting each other and seeing the group is comprised of 5 [warriors/wizards/rogues/clerics - pick one] and nothing else, not realize they're short a few key elements and go out and recruit some people to fill the gaps???

Lanefan

Click to expand...

What recruits are available and their terms of employment is entirely under DM fiat -- it is as much a form of largesse as providentially finding a cache of water breathing potions right before you need them. I know many DMs that prefer not to have any or many NPCs mixed in with the party (which I suspect is one of the reasons for the decline in cohorts/henchmen inside the ruleset over the editions) and I know many groups that chafe at having to rely on a NPC for pivotal abilities.

Ultimately, non-casters are dependent on DM whim if they want to engage a more fantastical adventure that requires divinatory, environmental survival, or magical travel requirements. Perseus cannot try to kill the gorgon without the DM providing winged sandals. The provided aegis on the other hand is just convenience.

Spell casters rarely have the need to depend on DM whim in these regards.

Cap'n Kobold said:

"'Sufficient' spell casters to handle an adventure type" in a low magic game is likely to be zero.
i.e. Adventures in a low magic game are not going to require options that the party doesn't have.

I doubt that any DM is going to require something to complete the adventure that the party that they are running the adventure for does not have access to.

Click to expand...

I do all the time. The adventures exist on the map irrespective of the party's capabilities. It is up to the group to determine what adventures to engage, what preparations to make, and when to disengage.

Hathorym said:

In our game, we make what we want, allow MC and feats, cheer each other's successes, comfort our failures, drink beer, have a good time. We aren't worried about balance because we get ourselves into some many different situations we're happy that one of us can help us out of it. I can't recall a time where someone felt they were weaker than another character for mechanical reasons, only story.

We've played this way for 11 years through 3.5, Pathfinder, 4th, 5th, Star Wars, and Champions.

The bottom line is that if you constantly fret about imbalance, you'll find it everywhere. If you just chill, have fun, and tell great stories, you'll be more worried about what's going to happen TO your character, rather than what someone else's character can do that you can't.

Click to expand...

Hell yeah! Need another player?!

More to the point though I am wondering about people that complain about balance or "game breaking" combinations. I am wondering if their complaints could be addressed by going "basic" and if they have tried it.

As for me, I am lucky to play and there is such "game trust" among our group that we simply root for one another and move forward. We have only played with feats and multiclassing. I don't get enough opportunity to play as it is to complain much when I do play. Additionally, if one of us was jacking up the game for everyone else, we would make some changes (but I cannot recall that happening). Once in AD&D we actually told the DM he had dumped too many magic items on us, so he made an adjustment. What were we thinking?! Ha!

You see people level dip and others roll their eyes about various things. You see some people create 4 class behemoths to maximize a series of attack routines. I don't judge, but some people seem to play in games where these things cause problems.

I also wonder if any DMs have felt things are going south and then clamped down on the options to rein people back in.

Perhaps my comments are really directed at the the naysayers who complain about the mechanics on various forums. I wonder if they have tried a stripped down version....

Warpiglet said:

Hell yeah! Need another player?!

Click to expand...

We're always looking to add quality people. Come on down to west central Florida!

I would expect that a lot of this falls to the DM. I don't think that there's anything wrong with a little power imbalance (if it even exists) between classes as long as there's is something for each character to do. It only becomes an issue when one character is the star in all situations.

It's like the Avengers. Hulk and Thor are certainly more powerful....but there is still stuff for Black Widow and Hawkeye to do. So the DM has to make sure that there are parts of the story there for everyone. "Power balance" is not anywhere near as important as "Spotlight balance", in my opinion.

As for feats and multiclassing...those are kind of unrelated to questions of balance, although they can play a part in that. But in my opinion, they can be a problem for some groups based on what I've read here. Ironically, I think most groups who seem to think the answer would be more options would be better off trying to play without feats and multiclassing...the game becomes more difficult and decisions in game become more important than decisions made during character generation.

dco said:

The player didn't create a problem, he experienced an unbalanced design and didn't like it, subsequently problems arised. He can not choose what he likes, there is no choice there, the choice comes later when he has to think how to spend his time.

Click to expand...

Players choose which classes and builds to play, and they can choose to see how they will compare against other classes and builds before they start. No rules are hidden, and there's plenty of class/build analysis and discussion online (IF they choose to find it). If I choose a class/build that is weak at something and I don't like that, I have no one but myself to thank for that. If my character good at something, but another player's character is better and that bugs me, that again is no one's problem but my own. Nothing wrong with talking to the DM about tweaking things, but lets not absolve the players' taking responsibility for the choices they do make.