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

[The Choice]

If all those other spells weren't meant to be used, why do they exist? I think saying "well the wizard wasn't meant to be played that way" is rather dubious with the amount of core spells (and the assertion that such spells are non-core is frankly silly, they're right there in the PHB/srd) printed that support that playstyle.

It's not like the only spells in core are blasty and everyone just picks stuff from splats. Wizards were meant to be flexible in 3rd, and an Evoker was just one type of wizard.

... I was being facetious... apparently I failed to convey that. I'll try harder next time.

 

[Magil]

My apologies, it's just I've heard the argument before in a serious context.

Some of the things that I have taken for granted and seen taken for granted in many other places (that class balance between casters and non-casters in 3.x is atrocious) have been actually apparently seriously disputed here, so I'm having a hard time telling what's serious and what's not, as a fairly new poster here

 

[Hussar]

Heh, no worries. I knew it was meant as a joke, but, you are right, there are people who put this kind of thing forward seriously apparently. Which makes discussions about game mechanics somewhat wonky when people, again apparently, have the tactical sense of a concussed gerbil.

It's not like the tactics that, say, Neonchameleon, are all that hard to figure out. Heck, even back in 2e I realized that a conjurer was a much better specialist than an evoker. And that was in the days when you didn't get Monster Summoning until it was a 3rd level spell.

But, yeah, it doesn't take a whole lot of analysis to pick spells at any given level that are more versatile and more effective than evocation spells.

 

[Ratskinner]

And, I'm still baffled by the idea that 4e isn't easy to customize. How can it not be? The math is RIGHT THERE. You know exactly what's going to happen (or at the very least, you have some very good pointers) if you change something and, if you want to achieve a particular end, it's generally ludicrously simple. That's the beauty of a balanced, transparent system. It's very, very easy to customize.

hmmm....I think that depends on the nature of the customization. Add a new monster...easy. Add a new power...easy. Change the way magic works....hard/tedious. Create a new class....POV dependent, probably more tedious than previous editions, though. Change the way combat works....mediocre-hard, depending on the changes desired.

The help provided by the math being right there is also dependent upon how much you buy into that math in the first place.

I mean, look at Essentials. They take the core 4e engine and strip off very, very large chunks, and you can still run it alongside core 4e. Imagine, for a second, trying to do that in 3e. We're going to strip out Vancian casting, entirely, and then try to run those characters alongside Vancian casters. Good luck.

ummm....what? How can you have Vancian casters running alongside anyone if Vancian casters have been stripped out? Although, there are several non-Vancian magic alternatives available off-the shelf for 3e d20. Some are even better balanced, IMHO, than the original casters.

Nonetheless, I can tell you from experience that ripping out or modifying the whole magic system from 3e is not as hard as it sounds. To be sure, you're going to muck with the system pretty profoundly, but then, you knew that when you sat down to do it.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
ummm....what? How can you have Vancian casters running alongside anyone if Vancian casters have been stripped out? Although, there are several non-Vancian magic alternatives available off-the shelf for 3e d20. Some are even better balanced, IMHO, than the original casters.

Nonetheless, I can tell you from experience that ripping out or modifying the whole magic system from 3e is not as hard as it sounds. To be sure, you're going to muck with the system pretty profoundly, but then, you knew that when you sat down to do it.

Sorry, said that badly.

Take a non-vancian caster in 3e, say a Binder. And try to compare that on the same tier as a core caster. Those two classes aren't even in the same league. Or any of the Tome of Magic casters, all of which are non-Vancian, and put them in the same game as any standard Vancian caster. They are WAYYYY sucking hind mammary gland.

OTOH, I can take an Essentials character and run it alongside any Non-essentials character and they're both going to be about equally effective.

So, I'd say that the 4e engine is pretty robust when you can largely strip the AEDU system (effectively the same as stripping out Vancian casting in earlier editions) from a class and then run that class along side standard AEDU characters.

Flipping it around, look at how hard it is to bring the fighters/rogues up to par with the casters. We've had years of game development, including Pathfinder, but certainly not limited to just that, trying to close that gap and it's never really worked.

 

[drothgery]

Well, blasty mages sucked for two reasons - massively increased HP for monsters, and WAY too many immunities. The damage for most spells wasn't increased from 2e to 3e, but the monsters got two to three times more HP, and gained all sorts of either resistances or flat out immunities. Never mind SR as well. So, yeah, the blasty mage got absolutely hosed.

I never understood why anyone would play a Warmage.

... because despite being very sub-optimal in 3.x, blasty casters are fun (at least for me). And I hate fussing over which spells to memorize as a wizard or spending way too long picking the handful of spells as a sorcerer. I ran a warmage for the last third of the only game I ever played from level 1 to 20 (admittedly, I used an alternate class feature from PH2 to pick up greater teleport).

 

[Ratskinner]

Take a non-vancian caster in 3e, say a Binder. And try to compare that on the same tier as a core caster. Those two classes aren't even in the same league. Or any of the Tome of Magic casters, all of which are non-Vancian, and put them in the same game as any standard Vancian caster. They are WAYYYY sucking hind mammary gland.

OTOH, I can take an Essentials character and run it alongside any Non-essentials character and they're both going to be about equally effective.

Okay, but how great that is depends on your perspective/agenda for the game. Also, did anyone make up Essentials-style characters before wizards presented them? I'm asking in the tone of legitimate question, not challenging (I wasn't following D&D online for most of 4e's run). I mean, its one thing to say its easy modify, but if no one's doing it until Wizards is publishing it....it kinda weakens the argument.

So, I'd say that the 4e engine is pretty robust when you can largely strip the AEDU system (effectively the same as stripping out Vancian casting in earlier editions) from a class and then run that class along side standard AEDU characters.

Aside: I think people around here are using "Vancian" to mean a whole lot more than what I think it means.

"Robust" and "Easy" are two different things. Yes, having the math available makes it possible to create a new class (or whatever) and have it work out and still be balanced. However, if you're not worried as much about the balance (as you must figure 3e players can't be, at least not in the same way) then that's less of an issue. So, since 3e leaves a much bigger window for "acceptable" its pretty easy to land in. I tend to think that 4e players would differ greatly on what counts as "acceptable".

Flipping it around, look at how hard it is to bring the fighters/rogues up to par with the casters. We've had years of game development, including Pathfinder, but certainly not limited to just that, trying to close that gap and it's never really worked.

IME, its easier to bust casters and magic down to size, YMMV. I'm perfectly willing to modify the magic item rules and the magic rules to suit me. Yeah, that makes some caster-players weep, but...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If all those other spells weren't meant to be used, why do they exist? I think saying "well the wizard wasn't meant to be played that way" is rather dubious with the amount of core spells (and the assertion that such spells are non-core is frankly silly, they're right there in the PHB/srd) printed that support that playstyle.

It's not like the only spells in core are blasty and everyone just picks stuff from splats. Wizards were meant to be flexible in 3rd, and an Evoker was just one type of wizard.

They were meant to be used by the designers, but an experienced player (interested in optimization) would recognize they weren't actually that good and he could yield much better results with other spells.

One of the examples for: D&D 3E played fine and balanced if you played it like AD&D - it became imbalanced and broken if you played it as its own game.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm not seeing where the hobby itself is a barrier to entry to the hobby. Adventure design doesn't have to be sophisticated or involved, nor is that aspect of DMing disparate from learning the rules. In my view, learning the game through a published adventure is like teaching a toddler to walk by giving him crutches; if anything it's unnatural and stymies the development of the individual's creativity. I can't see where it's easier.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Wow I'm disagreeing with you two times in one day. Perhaps the world is ending this year.

People learn all the time from patterns. You watch other people do something and you learn. Looking at and using a canned module is no different. I can't imagine a DM doing very well entirely on his own. Examples are good. I do think that the best DMs (best vs very good in some cases) will end up doing their own stuff at some point. But even I started with store bought adventures way back in the day.

Now to be fair. I am for the DMG having lots of advice on adventure design. I fear though what they'd say wouldn't help because it wouldn't be right. Their dungeon design track record at WOTC isn't real good. If we could resurrect Gygax then I might be interested.

I have kiddingly said that they should make a campaign setting book called "Homebrew". This book should be totally full of stuff to make your own campaign world. I still consider the original Wilderness Survival guide as one of the best books ever for DMs. Some of that stuff in there would be good too.

 

[billd91]

One of the examples for: D&D 3E played fine and balanced if you played it like AD&D - it became imbalanced and broken if you played it as its own game.

I think one necessary psychological addition to this is: Playing it like it's a game with rules to exploit for maximum advantage rather than playing it like you're developing a fantasy action story with a framework of rules to support that. I'll admit that there have always been people playing like the former, but it is the point where virtually all RPGs face challenges.