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

[Emerikol]

A power's flavor text is one example of how you might describe or narrate it when you use it. You can alter this descriptions as often as you like, to fit your own idea of what your powers look like, or what's happening in the story as you use it. A wizard could have his magic missile take the form of flying green skulls rather than bolts of light. A rogue might say that his trick strike power takes the form of chasing his enemy around the room while shouting "Aha!" rather than a series of feints and lures.
The Flavor Text cannot change the function of the power, though. When you need to know the exact effect, look at the rules text that follows.
​

I think that I'd not play a game that had such a paragraph but you are right it would be clearer. I'm not against reflavoring something before the game starts but when the game is running I want it to be set. I also want the DM to adjudicate situations where the power doesn't make sense given how it is described. e.g. underwater fireballs and oozes knocked prone.

Of course this is all part of the simulationist preferences I have. I realize those who prefer narrativist approaches don't mind these changes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I also want the DM to adjudicate situations where the power doesn't make sense given how it is described...

Of course this is all part of the simulationist preferences I have. I realize those who prefer narrativist approaches don't mind these changes.

It really strikes me as much more 'gamist' (the rules work the way they work) than narrativist, which might also want to override rules, though for the sake of story rather than 'realism.' Though it's entirely compatible with each given an imaginative enough (come up with a perfectly dramatic/consistent description every time) or laid-back enough (don't freak out over it) player.

And, really, as nice as it was of you to dredge up the underwater fireball, the way this sort of thing gets worked out is much more typically: the martial character can't do much of anything unless he can find an olympic record somewhere to prove it's humanly possible, and then roll a few natural 20s, while the caster can use the most bizarre rationales for his spell working in some overpowered off-label application and get commended for his 'cleverness.' I'm not saying it always shakes out that way, just every freak'n time I've seen it happen since 1980.

 

[Emerikol]

It really strikes me as much more 'gamist' (the rules work the way they work) than narrativist, which might also want to override rules, though for the sake of story rather than 'realism.' Though it's entirely compatible with each given an imaginative enough (come up with a perfectly dramatic/consistent description every time) or laid-back enough (don't freak out over it) player.

I should have made it clearer. The narrativist wants an effect defined explicitly. The description of how the effect works if irrelevant and they'll make up a new one if the default one doesn't work. A simulation is more than willing to apply the effect as defined so long as the description does not conflict with the situation.

Example: (While underwater)
Narrativist: I superheat the water around the enemy and scald him.
DM: huh?
Narrativist whispers: I'm using my fireball.

Simulationist: I want to cast my fireball but will this water stop it?
DM: The small bead will detonate upon impact with the water at the tip of your finger. Most of the blast will dissipate but you may take a little damage. 1d6 or so.

I
And, really, as nice as it was of you to dredge up the underwater fireball, the way this sort of thing gets worked out is much more typically: the martial character can't do much of anything unless he can find an olympic record somewhere to prove it's humanly possible, and then roll a few natural 20s, while the caster can use the most bizarre rationales for his spell working in some overpowered off-label application and get commended for his 'cleverness.' I'm not saying it always shakes out that way, just every freak'n time I've seen it happen since 1980.

You've obviously lived a hard life as a player. I feel for ya.

I find that most of this adjudication of stuff concerns spells in earlier editions. Not saying the martial never tries something unusual but it's usually already clearer.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Once I knew what class i was going to play for this game I figured out what concept I wanted to try and build and then looked through one of the Fighter's handbooks and Char Op threads posted on the WotC boards to see what synergies had been identified that fit. Whne I made my swordmage there weren't really any approprite Char Op builds but using the swordmage handbook I ended up with a kick a** sheilding swordmage. For the Fighter there was actually a Char Op. build that fit what i wanted to play perfectly in theory however in play not so much. Weird how that worked out.

Actually not really. 4e is a pretty well balanced system with tactical depth, and in such a system knowing what you have backwards is going to be worth far more than picking the theoretical best options. You made the swordmage your own and, not surprisingly, did extremely well with it. But you don't seem to have done the same with the fighter, instead using the equivalent of a net-deck which didn't go in detail into how the synergies work. So you've missed a few - I'm fairly sure that you wouldn't have picked RoB if you'd been starting from scratch, instead bypassing it for something like Sweeping Blow or Armour Piercing Thrust (if that's its name)?

 

[Herschel]

Once I knew what class i was going to play for this game I figured out what concept I wanted to try and build and then looked through one of the Fighter's handbooks and Char Op threads posted on the WotC boards to see what synergies had been identified that fit. Whne I made my swordmage there weren't really any approprite Char Op builds but using the swordmage handbook I ended up with a kick a** sheilding swordmage. For the Fighter there was actually a Char Op. build that fit what i wanted to play perfectly in theory however in play not so much. Weird how that worked out.

I'd say it worked out normally.

With the Shielding Swordmage, you built it. You looked at the elements, thought how they worked, built as you played for how you played and, just as importantly, how the group played and DM played. I'm not at all surprised you have a "better" character building that way.

With teh Fighter you essentially had a concept and "net decked" it. I've found that's a bad way to build a character for two reasons:

1. Much of Char-Op is actually Theory-Op and not practical for extended play. It also makes assumptions that the DM, monsters and even the rest of your party are going to be Blocks of Tofu.

2. You don't think about your character build, you just do it. You don't feel the synergies nor feel the playstyle because you're trying to play to the concept/build rather than the other way around.

I'll give you another example: I've played an Assault Swordmage for 19 levels, and I can build a Swordmage with anyone that I can play six ways to Sunday. I've taken some elements (including Paragon Path) that Char-Op doesn't rate very highly but I've built a very good Defender because it fits my playstyle and has synergies that work better in practice than on paper.

Conversely, I played with an Op'd Paladin in high Paragon and saw a bunch of cool stuff on his character sheet but realized I had no feel for how any of it worked together.

 

[Ratskinner]

And, really, as nice as it was of you to dredge up the underwater fireball, the way this sort of thing gets worked out is much more typically: the martial character can't do much of anything unless he can find an olympic record somewhere to prove it's humanly possible, and then roll a few natural 20s, while the caster can use the most bizarre rationales for his spell working in some overpowered off-label application and get commended for his 'cleverness.' I'm not saying it always shakes out that way, just every freak'n time I've seen it happen since 1980.

Totally dependent on the DM, IME. I've played with Fighter/Dwarf loving DM's who rain situational bonuses down upon the ironclad characters while stuffing the wizards back into their books. (Favorite trick: have everything happen in deep, dark dungeons with absolutely no light sources, then keep repeating "How do you see this?") That said, I have no doubt that since at least 2e-era, magic lovers have outnumbered fighter lovers, especially as DMs.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nobody ever heard of torches? Or lanterns?

(I mean, Light & Continual Light are nice, but they won't light a web, a Web, or a warming campfire...)

 

[Herschel]

Nobody ever heard of torches? Or lanterns?

(I mean, Light & Continual Light are nice, but they won't light a web, a Web, or a warming campfire...)

I've heard of those, and things like wrist watches and pocket calculators. Is there a museum somewhere?

 

[Tony Vargas]

You've obviously lived a hard life as a player. I feel for ya.

I've gamed with more than a few different groups over the years, and at conventions, so my experiences run the gammut. But, while I've rarely seen 'martial' get a fair shake in a D&D rule, I've never seen it get a fair shake when it comes down to DM rulings, or, worse, the long-winded discussions/debates D&D games could often break down into. I never really reflected upon the phenomenon, though, until 3e, when the fighter finally looked like a real participant in the game. You could do complex, detailed build-to-concepts, there were lots of more detailed rules with more options in combat. It looked like the fighter had arrived. Unfortunately, they'd also stripped away every real limitation on casters you could think of (save DCs scaled, more spells/day, more hps/better AC, Touch attacks, concentration doing away with spell interruptions, feats doing away with components, and so forth). While I'd noticed, before that 'realism' only seemed to come up when the fighter (or benighted thief, poor thing), tried to do something, I hadn't realized how universal or pernicious it was until the "Fighter SUX" threads got rollling....

It's a pretty sad, quite pervasive attitude in the D&D community, and one at odds with the relative 'popularity' of the fighter class. Garthanos has this theory that it's 'geeks' vicariously getting back at 'jocks' by ruling against the big dumb fighter... My theory is more that it's just easier to accept magic doing whatever, because there's no point of reference, while martial abilities have a clear point of reference IRL. Sometimes I think his might be right. ;(

I find that most of this adjudication of stuff concerns spells in earlier editions. Not saying the martial never tries something unusual but it's usually already clearer.

Spells did a lot more and more complex rules that tended to be more vague and open-ended, so there is that, in earlier editions - you'd expect more adjudications of spells than of "I attack the orc on the right with my axe." But, you'd also expect them to fall evenly on the side of reigning in magical power (disallowing what the spell does mechanically) as setting it loose (allowing more than the spell does, mechanically). IMX, it shakes out more towards the latter, with the former coming up only after a spell has demonstrably broken the game. Of course, the former is fiercely resisted by the player, while the latter is passionately championed, so there's that self-interest going into it, too.

Adjudication of martial options is less common, and usually a lot simpler. If it's not something the DM feels is realistic (and that varies), he'll say no, if it's anything that might work a little better than a boring old attack, he'll give it some massive penalty.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Totally dependent on the DM, IME. I've played with Fighter/Dwarf loving DM's who rain situational bonuses down upon the ironclad characters while stuffing the wizards back into their books. That said, I have no doubt that since at least 2e-era, magic lovers have outnumbered fighter lovers, especially as DMs.

I've known some DMs who were very hard on wizards - but they were very hard on /everyone/. While I'd expect there to be those who are enthused about fighters and down on casters, I've never found one - I suspect the attitude is more common among players for some reason, mabye because fighters are perceived as a less 'intellectual' class and DMing as more intellectual?

(Favorite trick: have everything happen in deep, dark dungeons with absolutely no light sources, then keep repeating "How do you see this?")

I don't see (npi) how that's an issue. Magic-users and Clerics both had Continual Light, so out of the lowest levels you say "I pull out my coin with continual light." Then Light became a cantrip, then an at-will cantrip. And what adventuring party didn't go into a dungeon with torches, Bullseye lanterns, and enough oil to re-enact the bombing of Dresden?