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

[Ahnehnois]

[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.

I'm still talking about mechanical effectiveness. Just in a broader context.

For example, one of the most broken abilities I'd ever seen (or so I thought) was the warlock's eldritch blast. Several d6 of damage at will? You could use it like a mining drill. You could do an infinite amount of damage very easily. The thing that sold me on it was the half damage against objects and slow progression. Is this mechanical? Yes. Is it in the context of a CR appropriate combat encounter? Not really.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

It's not. But, modern D&D does have this rep for discouraging house rules. The reason was just that modern D&D was prettymuch playable as written, while classic D&D could be hard to even decipher, let alone run successfully without any house rules. Since you didn't /need/ to house-rule it just to play modern D&D, house rules could feel like un-tested waters.

There are other reasons, too. 3e's built-in rewards for system mastery gave players an incentive to insist on 'RAW' so they could reap those rewards, while DMs who learned their craft with classic D&D were accustomed to house-ruling things that were obviously 'broken' (which is exactly what an intentionally-designed reward-for-system mastery looked like to an old-school DM: an obviously broken rule). 4e's obvious 'math' progression let you 'see the wires,' which made mucking with them a bit more intimidating and also more obvious to your players.

But I think the biggest part of it was that old rough-and-ready approach we had in the game's youth, when it was a big experiment and needed a lot of 'fixing.' Just because it's ain't broke doesn't mean we can't fiddle with it...

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], plus anyone else who is following along:

One of the PCs in my game is an invoker with wizard multi-class. His Paragon Path is Divine Philosopher, and as an Epic Destiny he is intending to take Sage of Ages. His feats include two skill-training feats, plus a power swap feat to get the wizard utility Arcane Gate.

Sage of Ages has the following 26th level Utility:

Trick of Knowledge

Encounter * Arcane
Minor Action, Personal
Effect: You make an Arcana check and gain a benefit based on your check result until the end of the encounter.

30 or lower: No effect
31-35: +5 bonus to saving throws
36-40: + 2 bonus to all defenses
41-45: + 2 bonus to attack rolls with arcane powers
46-50: Make saving throws at the start of your turn instead of the end of your turn
51-55: Pick two benefits you can gain from a roll of 31 through 50
56-60: Pick three benefits you can gain from a roll of 31 through 50
61 or higher: Gain all four benefits you can gain from a roll of 31 through 50​

I don't know if the player has noticed yet that, as written, the only benefit the "41-45" result of this power will give will be to his encounter use of Thunderwave (from his multi-class feat). I am intending, in due course (ie when it actually matters, in 8 levels time), to allow the +2 bonus to attack to apply to all the PCs' attack powers, both Thunderwave plus his divine attack powers.

That is a modest house rule. At my table we use quite a few house rules like that (eg another one governs the interaction between power sources for a fighter-cleric-paragon warpriest). They're not hard to implement!, and are not going to break their game. Their impact on play is obvious and deliberate.

We have other house rules too, like an agreement on how dazing mid-turn works (if you get dazed mid-turn, you lose the rest of your actions; if you get undazed mid-turn, you get back the rest of your action - for the first year or two we ran it the other way, but didn't like how it played). And two of our house rules - that weapon focus etc don't help sorcerer dagger implement attacks, and that bonus saves can't make you worse off if you failed them - have since been made an official rule (official errata, and stealth errata in Essentials respectively, I think).

Plus there's my (weaker) version of [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]'s "extended rest" rule (ie in contexts of hard wilderness or underground travel, making extended rests a function of more than just the passage of time).

Outside of the context of organised play, which obviously has its own logic, is there anyone who's not doing this sort of thing in their 4e game - tweaking here and there to make the game better fit the PCs their players are trying to build, and the dynamics of play as they're experiencing them at their tables?

 

[Hussar]

I think Tony V does have a point though. We house ruled AD&D to the degree that we did for a couple of reasons. 1. The rules as written were sometimes so byzantine that using them was very difficult (see the Initiative and Surprise rules, or, weapon vs armor rules). Or, 2. The rules were absent in many common cases. How do you adjudicate jumping across a pit? There aren't any rules for that, so, you have to ad-hoc ones. And, over time, those ad-hoc rules tended to become entrenched within groups and become de facto house rules.

3e and later D&D tried to eliminate number 2 to a large degree. The skill and various rules cover the vast majority of things that come up. I remember one discussion early in 3e as to whether a horse would be able to climb. And, believe it or not, there actually are rules governing this in the 3e ruleset.

So, yeah, house ruling in 3e and later, IMO, tends to cover more table issues - things like "shot clocks" and whatnot to speed play, or be minor adjustments, rather than wholesale creations. People don't dump entire systems because they're too complicated to use.

 

[Hussar]

I always define balance thusly:

Balance in an RPG means that no single option is just better than any other option. Options might be situationally better, and that's fine, so long as overall, any given option is more or less as good as any other option. Thus, a bow is balanced with a sword because, while a bow has ranged attacks, it does a bit less damage and can't be used in melee.​

To me, that's where balance lies.

 

[FireLance]

For example, one of the most broken abilities I'd ever seen (or so I thought) was the warlock's eldritch blast. Several d6 of damage at will? You could use it like a mining drill. You could do an infinite amount of damage very easily. The thing that sold me on it was the half damage against objects and slow progression. Is this mechanical? Yes. Is it in the context of a CR appropriate combat encounter? Not really.

For some reason, this reminded me of an old, old 3e thread (from Dec 2006) debating the cost of a command-activated item that allowed the use of cure moderate wounds at will.

Maybe it was this paragraph from post #24 :

But in the end, of course, it highly depends on the kind of game you play. If you more or less just care about party fighting and not really care about the complicated implications of dropping such bombs into a living ever-changing world with power hungry groups, with wars, economies, churches, etc., then it seems you are fine with unlimited healing (and many other unlimited spells). For example for hack&slay styles, it can be very practical to not have to care about long resting phases between heavy fights, which only slow down your pace.

I guess some people think of "broken" more in relation to the rules, while others think of "broken" more in relation to the world.

 

[Manbearcat]

To make a few gross analogies regarding the issues in # 1 that I outlined above:

- What one implement/technology is resoundingly attributed to changing the scope/dynamics of modern warfare? The radio. Communication directly from the field to the command post and then back from command post to the field operators is just that game-changing. The radio, and all of its surrounding infrastructure, is the Generalist Wizard. By being able to circumvent the historical establishment of strategic warfare, the Generalist Wizard is able to render enemy advantage (numbers, superior firepower) inert and able to maximize the affect of allied forces numbers, firepower and precision...while minimizing exposure to themselves and to allied forces.

- The druid? If the Fighter is one armored brigade of tanks, then the druid is two...with supporting infantry...and tactical air support...with radio communication capacity.

The other issue is the martial infantry disparity that comes up in play whereby one martial character's metrics are just fundamentally inadequate in comparison to another martial character's metrics (who are supposed to be performing generally the same role). This is mostly a problem inherent to grossly overpowered synergy of multi-classing or diversification of potency (for the sake of utility) to the point of economy of action dissolution. Its nice to have diversity in build choice. However, when this diversity yields wildly different character effectiveness in play (when the characters are supposed to be performing the same general combat role), it becomes a DM's nightmare to post-hoc balance and legitimize each martial heroes' protaganism (while still challenging the party).

 

[slobster]

To make a few gross analogies regarding the issues in # 1 that I outlined above:

- What one implement/technology is resoundingly attributed to changing the scope/dynamics of modern warfare? The radio. Communication directly from the field to the command post and then back from command post to the field operators is just that game-changing. The radio, and all of its surrounding infrastructure, is the Generalist Wizard. By being able to circumvent the historical establishment of strategic warfare, the Generalist Wizard is able to render enemy advantage (numbers, superior firepower) inert and able to maximize the affect of allied forces numbers, firepower and precision...while minimizing exposure to themselves and to allied forces.

- The druid? If the Fighter is one armored brigade of tanks, then the druid is two...with supporting infantry...and tactical air support...with radio communication capacity.

And the bard is John Philip Sousa, forever revolutionizing the field of musical warfare and goose-stepping.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think Tony V does have a point though. We house ruled AD&D to the degree that we did for a couple of reasons. 1. The rules as written were sometimes so byzantine that using them was very difficult (see the Initiative and Surprise rules, or, weapon vs armor rules). Or, 2. The rules were absent in many common cases. How do you adjudicate jumping across a pit? There aren't any rules for that, so, you have to ad-hoc ones. And, over time, those ad-hoc rules tended to become entrenched within groups and become de facto house rules.

3e and later D&D tried to eliminate number 2 to a large degree. The skill and various rules cover the vast majority of things that come up. I remember one discussion early in 3e as to whether a horse would be able to climb. And, believe it or not, there actually are rules governing this in the 3e ruleset.

So, yeah, house ruling in 3e and later, IMO, tends to cover more table issues - things like "shot clocks" and whatnot to speed play, or be minor adjustments, rather than wholesale creations. People don't dump entire systems because they're too complicated to use.

Yep. The variations I've seen in 3e and 4e have been minor tweaks or misconceptions about a rule that a whole group happened to share rather than the kinds of serious tinkering we did back in the day. Modern versions of D&D have just been more consistent rule sets that need less modification. There's also the factor that modern D&D gives players a lot more choices that potentially have a lot of impact on play, and may object to them being taken away by an unfavorable house rule.

 

[Steely_Dan]

So non-level dependant spell-use could go a long way.