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

[Corwin]

But just to be clear - are you suggesting that the best typical solution to the problem of an "imbalanced" or "expertise-gap" build of PCs by the players is to recruit another player? Perhaps on condition the player play a PC of a certain class (eg burglar)?

Now to answer it without returning a question. This is a strawman. I don't recall ever stating I believed any such thing. If I did, I apologize as it was never my intention. All I did was to counter a naysayer by pointing out that there was precedent to be found in pop culture for a group of similarly focused adventurers (dwarven warriors) to seek out a new teammate. One that specifically compliments their limited skillset with fresh expertise (a [halfling] burglar).

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I did use the phrase "not universally popular solution".

But just to be clear - are you suggesting that the best typical solution to the problem of an "imbalanced" or "expertise-gap" build of PCs by the players is to recruit another player? Perhaps on condition the player play a PC of a certain class (eg burglar)?

Caution caution caution!

Before this goes right down the rabbit hole, [MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION] are you using the term "player" to mean "character" (as so many mistakenly do) or do you in fact mean a new real-world person actually sitting at the table?

Lanefan

 

[Corwin]

Before this goes right down the rabbit hole, [MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION] are you using the term "player" to mean "character" (as so many mistakenly do) or do you in fact mean a new real-world person actually sitting at the table?

I rarely, if ever, mix the two terms, no. But I cannot fathom how it matters, either way. Are you somehow of the opinion that there aren't groups out there that add a player (yes, player) into their existing mix to shore up weaknesses? Really?

If so, that's hilarious to me. Because I see it all the time. Heck, just last weekend, at our local gaming convention, the Adventurers League was at capacity every slot. That's nearly 200 players cycling through tables every 5 hours. It is very common for the players, who've mustered early to a table, to begin rattling off what character they are playing. Occasionally, they realize that there is a noticeable lack of something they would like. That's when the looks around the room begin. To see if anyone standing around, still looking for an empty chair, can fill that role. "We need an arcane caster. You got one at tier 2 you can play?" Stuff like that. So common you couldn't trade it for a M:tG basic land card.

Hope that answers your question.

 

[Lanefan]

I rarely, if ever, mix the two terms, no. But I cannot fathom how it matters, either way. Are you somehow of the opinion that there aren't groups out there that add a player (yes, player) into their existing mix to shore up weaknesses? Really?

As a matter of fact, yes. Really.

If so, that's hilarious to me. Because I see it all the time. Heck, just last weekend, at our local gaming convention, the Adventurers League was at capacity every slot. That's nearly 200 players cycling through tables every 5 hours. It is very common for the players, who've mustered early to a table, to begin rattling off what character they are playing. Occasionally, they realize that there is a noticeable lack of something they would like. That's when the looks around the room begin. To see if anyone standing around, still looking for an empty chair, can fill that role. "We need an arcane caster. You got one at tier 2 you can play?" Stuff like that. So common you couldn't trade it for a M:tG basic land card.

AL games at a convention probably couldn't be more different than the environment I default to: the stable long-standing home game. Adding a player on a whim in that situation just doesn't happen even if the campaign is just starting out...for one thing, there aren't usually spare people standing around my table every Sunday night; and for another, even if there are what are they doing in my house and who invited them?

So yes, adding a character to fill a gap is far more likely than adding a player.

Lanefan

 

[Corwin]

As a matter of fact, yes. Really.

Okay.

AL games at a convention probably couldn't be more different than the environment I default to: the stable long-standing home game.

I forgot we were talking about your anecdotal reality. My bad. FYI, there are multitudes more players playing AL than there are players sitting at your weekly campaign table. I wouldn't discount their experience more than that of you and your players.

Oh, and FYI, I would wager most AL games played in a year are *not* at conventions. Most are played at local game stores or by local groups in their homes.

Adding a player on a whim in that situation just doesn't happen even if the campaign is just starting out...for one thing, there aren't usually spare people standing around my table every Sunday night; and for another, even if there are what are they doing in my house and who invited them?

How about this one: For all four of my years in high school, we had a game club that met every day at lunch. We had enough members to break into two groups. We generally played relatively long-running campaigns. Sometimes we would mix up the party composition between tables. Like, maybe the next adventure at one table was getting ready to go into a dungeon and they could use a thief. So the thief's player would swap groups. Or the two wizard players wanting to travel together for a while so they could exchange new spells into their spellbooks.

So yes, adding a character to fill a gap is far more likely than adding a player.

...at your table.

 

[Lanefan]

Okay.


I forgot we were talking about your anecdotal reality. My bad. FYI, there are multitudes more players playing AL than there are players sitting at your weekly campaign table. I wouldn't discount their experience more than that of you and your players.

Fair enough - though I very much suspect my experiences are mirrored by many others.

How about this one: For all four of my years in high school, we had a game club that met every day at lunch. We had enough members to break into two groups. We generally played relatively long-running campaigns. Sometimes we would mix up the party composition between tables. Like, maybe the next adventure at one table was getting ready to go into a dungeon and they could use a thief. So the thief's player would swap groups. Or the two wizard players wanting to travel together for a while so they could exchange new spells into their spellbooks.

Now that's just plain cool.

Unfortunately I don't have that sort of player base to draw on. Which is somewhat self-inflicted: I've become fussier over the years over who I'm willing to DM.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

This is a strawman. I don't recall ever stating I believed any such thing. If I did, I apologize as it was never my intention. All I did was to counter a naysayer by pointing out that there was precedent to be found in pop culture for a group of similarly focused adventurers (dwarven warriors) to seek out a new teammate. One that specifically compliments their limited skillset with fresh expertise (a [halfling] burglar).

I think the issue in the context of RPGing isn't the fictional element (ie does it satisfying the logic of the story to add another person to the team). I think the issue - and hence the motivation for the "naysayer" - is a practical one about the real world elements of RPGing: namely, that adding another character to the team means having someone run that character, which creates potential issues whether that is (i) an existing player (multiple players per character is sometimes contentious, even if one is positioned as a henchman/retainer; and it tends to dilute the player's effort-per-character), (ii) the GM (well-known issues with DM workload, DMPCs, etc) or (iii) a new player (besides the question of availability - qv [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s loungeroom - or desirability - qv the same - there is also the issue of how many players a group wants, or realistically can handle, at the table).

Anyway, I went back to check the "naysayer" post - not [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s to whom you were actually replying (after all, you agreed with Lanefan), but (presumably) Nagol's post to which Lanefan's post with which you agreed was a reply:

A lot of the time our play circle generates characters separate and blindly. Each person brings what they want to play and we see how well the group does.

If that is the issue - that players in a "play circle" generate PCs blindly, and then turn up, and so may not have every class or "role" covered, and hence can't be guaranteed to have a full suite of spellcasting or similar specialist solutions available - then what is the answer? In the context of a "play circle" of the sort Nagol describes, I don't think recruiting an extra player is necessarily going to be viable. Introducing an NPC, whether under player or GM control, has its own issues.

I can certainly see why Nagol thinks that a wider range of capacity for non-casting PCs might be part of an answer. And I don't think that's because he's unfamiliar with The Hobbit.

Let me answer with a question of my own: Just to be clear - are you suggesting that there is ever something that can be even remotely identified as a "universally popular solution" to typical problems found at RPG tables?

No. But Nagol framed a pretty concrete problem - the all-fighter party, or the no-cleric party, having difficulties with some fairly standard scenario types unless the GM throws them some bones. And then suggested some possible solutions.

Lanefan suggested the solution of recruiting a character to fill the expertise gap. You reiterated that solution with reference to The Hobbit. All I did was point out that such a solution may not be the right one, because - even back when recruiting NPCs to fill gaps was a central part of the rules - it was far from universally practised. I certainly didn't have in mind recruiting a new player, but that's because - as with Nagol and Lanefan - I was envisaging the play happening in the context of an established "play circle" rather than a drop-in environment of the sort that you have described in your later posts.

 

[Lanefan]

I can certainly see why Nagol thinks that a wider range of capacity for non-casting PCs might be part of an answer.

The risk of course with that (and here goes another can of worms all over the floor) is that once you give the non-casters said wider range of capacity how will that fly in a party with a more conventional character mix? Have you just overpowered the non-casters? Or, have you just made the non-casters into one-man bands where each can do everything and doesn't need anyone else?

... Nagol framed a pretty concrete problem - the all-fighter party, or the no-cleric party, having difficulties with some fairly standard scenario types unless the GM throws them some bones. And then suggested some possible solutions.

I've forgotten the post in which such suggestions were made, but was one of them "let 'em sink or swim as they are"? Barring recruitment of additional characters or (if a higher-level party that has some resources) purchase of resources, that would be my automatic default.

Lanefan

 

[Nagol]

The risk of course with that (and here goes another can of worms all over the floor) is that once you give the non-casters said wider range of capacity how will that fly in a party with a more conventional character mix? Have you just overpowered the non-casters? Or, have you just made the non-casters into one-man bands where each can do everything and doesn't need anyone else?

I've forgotten the post in which such suggestions were made, but was one of them "let 'em sink or swim as they are"? Barring recruitment of additional characters or (if a higher-level party that has some resources) purchase of resources, that would be my automatic default.

Lanefan

Well, the situation doesn't get worse than it does now, really. Since the full-casters still need others, right?

One of the problems I see with D&D is that every PC is required to be decent in combat and only combat. What that means is for combat purposes, a deficiency in a class or even a monoculture in the group will skew tactics and risk, but by and large will not prevent success. Outside of combat just using the PC capability, the opposite is true. A deficiency in a class or a monoculture in the group can prevent success. Why should combat be the only pillar where everyone is expected to be competent, but different?

I'd find it helpful for my DMing playstyle (sandbox laissez faire) if the non-casters had analogues for many of the primary divinatory, travel, and life support challenges that access to low-to-mid level magic solves. Generally, I have solved the problem with a bunch of world-building (factions, established NPCs, and other resources), a limited form of magic-item purchases, and rules add-ons (like cohorts).

More importantly, I think the game would benefit from addressing these points for when I play a character. Many (most) of the DMs I've played with over the decades don't address this issue -- many have never considered this issue. I've seen campaigns where the casters effectively controlled what activities the party participated in because there were no other resources the non-casters could use to say no. If the casters didn't want to go, didn't want to search, or didn't want to protect the others then that potential adventure was dead.. Other levelled NPCs were rare to the point on non-existence "because the PCs are special and having others like them diminishes that" and certainly wouldn't want to adventure! It was almost the reverse of the DMPC pathology. Now if the non-casters didn't want to participate, the adventure could (and occasionally did) go ahead anyway -- just more slowly by burning caster resources in place of non-caster capability. It gave even more incentive to play a full-caster because it meant you became one of the decision makers of the campaign.

Heck, even with my inclusion of resources, I've seen it happen in my game as the anecdote I threw out earlier showed, The only caster with decent travel capability shut down the rest of the group (for a time) because he didn't want to stick around longer.

After all, the game has been moving away from having or even discussing the possibility of incorporating such analogues for at least a couple of editions now. Cohorts/henchmen ruleset have been dwindling since 1e. 3e had it reduced to a feat and you only got a single cohort. Did 4e have any rules for it? I think the answer is no, but some rules were provided as to how to make a companion NPC should the DM think one was valuable; 5e's advice is effectively the same. Magic item acquisition has returned to the default of "find in the field or don't get it". and that's been combined with magic items as luxuries and are expected to be much more rare than 1e-3e. There is limited discussion about world-building in general and almost none of it is aimed at adding resources for the PCs to utilize (I'd say none, but for a sentence or two under factions in the DMG).

 

[Corwin]

All I did was point out that such a solution may not be the right one...

I'll stop you there. You keep going on as if there is some kind of "right one". I keep trying to tell you there is no such thing. There is no such thing as this "universally popular solution" (your exact words) you've mentioned a handful of times in this thread.