Balancing D&D

[GameOgre]

So I guess the final word on DPR was not in fact the final word on DPR?

Nothing makes sense anymore. It's almost like you're making the same thread over and over again every month with slightly different wording. But I know that can't be the case, and I thought I could believe in a Final Word thread.

Well next month its "THE FINAL WORD: Dos El Apocalipsis"

 

[ccs]

I'll say this, learning about how Zapp's games run is a fascinating glimpse into a totally alien style of play....
Fortunately it's a style of play the majority of gamers don't actually experience in the real world.

 

[AriochQ]

This does seem to be a near manic infatuation with DPS, which is much more common in MMO's than TTRPG's.

Truthfully, as a DM, if you aren't able to balance a munchkinfied min/max build, then maybe someone else should DM? As DM's we have a wide variety of tools available to us (unlike MMO's which generally have zero tools beyond the dreaded patch update).

 

[Oofta]

So wait ... your old thread whining about the exact same thing was finally dropping to irrelevance so you had to fire up a new one?

In the words of vampire Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer: bored now.

As far as this thread or all the other ones on the same topic - it's simple. If PCs break the game it's the DM's fault, not the fault of the rules.

 

[pogre]

Truthfully, as a DM, if you aren't able to balance a munchkinfied min/max build, then maybe someone else should DM? As DM's we have a wide variety of tools available to us (unlike MMO's which generally have zero tools beyond the dreaded patch update).

If PCs break the game it's the DM's fault, not the fault of the rules.

While I largely agree with this sentiment - I do not agree the rules are faultless. There are certain suspect feats that continually cause problems.

If everyone in the party are min/maxers - a D.M. solution is fairly simple - crank it up.

However, when it is only one or two P.C.s, that makes it much tougher on the D.M.

Surely, we can constructively criticize rules that invite abuse without throwing all of the solutions on the D.M.

I guess I do not see the rules designers as immune to criticism.

The whole concept of min/max - super dps character builds is pretty alien to me, so I may be way off base.

 

[Oofta]

While I largely agree with this sentiment - I do not agree the rules are faultless. There are certain suspect feats that continually cause problems.

If everyone in the party are min/maxers - a D.M. solution is fairly simple - crank it up.

However, when it is only one or two P.C.s, that makes it much tougher on the D.M.

Surely, we can constructively criticize rules that invite abuse without throwing all of the solutions on the D.M.

I guess I do not see the rules designers as immune to criticism.

The whole concept of min/max - super dps character builds is pretty alien to me, so I may be way off base.

I've given a more detailed explanation in other threads, I just get tired of this same thing on constant spin cycle.

If the group is stomping on your encounters, ask them if they enjoy the cakewalk. If they do it's not a problem. If they want more challenge use better tactics, take advantage of the environment (some of my most difficult encounters have been against kobolds and goblins), send enemies in waves and so on.

The only time I see an issue with balance is if the players have an issue with one PC dominating the game or making their PC feel pointless. If that happens, discuss it with your group and figure out how to balance things out to everyone's satisfaction. Nerf something, buff others, disallow problematic combos, increase the AC of your enemies. Work it out with the group but also accept that there's probably no such thing as a perfectly balanced version of D&D.

The point is that 5E is flexible. IMHO it's pretty easy to balance things out with a couple of very, very minor adjustments; there's no reason for the CapnZapp sledgehammer. I'd give specific examples, but the OP never accepts anything but his own solutions (and he starts a new thread on this topic every few weeks).

No game is ever, will ever or can ever be perfect. It's just not nearly as broken as some people imply.

 

[Sacrosanct]

However, when it is only one or two P.C.s, that makes it much tougher on the D.M.
.

I don't think so, to be honest. The thing with min/maxers is that they tend to be highly specialized. D&D is a vast game, with lots of opportunity not just for combat, but for interaction, exploration, etc. Any good DM will evaluate their players and understand how to incorporate each into the game, and give an opportunity for each to shine at some point.

What does the GWM optimized player do when most of the session isn't about combat, but is around solving riddles, traps, interacting with NPCs, etc? Or even with combat, when said combat is mostly ranged? What does the sorlock spamming EB PC do when in a dungeon with so many twists, turns, and hiding places so that almost every combat encounter happens in melee, nullifying a huge benefit of the sorlock? Especially if there a lot of challenges that require the casters to expend their spell slots on the other two pillars?

I'm not saying the DM should be out to get min/maxers; they should get their opportunity like everyone else. Just that the game shouldn't be all about them, and it's not that hard to adjust your game to account for them.

 

[Satyrn]

If everyone in the party are min/maxers - a D.M. solution is fairly simple - crank it up.

My table has never really been minmaxers - certainly not near the apparent extreme of Zapp's table - but my fellow DM was finding our characters a little too strong and too/easily overcoming what he thought would be tough fights.

His solution was to make us rebuild our characters with the standard array. Because the generous ability score generation we had been using (4d6-L, reroll if weak) nearly assured we were rolling in 16+ scores, this scaled us back a bit in every aspect of the game. A couple fewer spells prepared means slightlyless-versatile casters, and every check, every attack is roughly 10% less likely to succeed and nearly every damage roll is just a little lower .

The game flows better for us, and the DM hasn't once complained about the strength of our characters since.

What I'm saying is, based on my experience, I advise DMs to scale back the PCs a little before scwling up the monsters.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I'll say this, learning about how Zapp's games run is a fascinating glimpse into a totally alien style of play....
Fortunately it's a style of play the majority of gamers don't actually experience in the real world.

There are plenty of DMs that start a campaign by looking at the major systems of the game being used, then running stats modeling on those systems to find constraints or problem areas...

everyone raise your hands.. (looks around.. the only thing surrounding me in the cornfield is corn and silence.. maybe Zapp.)

Guess there aren't many that do that after all.. but I'm one of em. So I'm fine with hearing this stuff. But I think the word of advice that I give to anyone who does this is ..

1. Keep it to yourself. Never let your players know you do this unless one of them wants to learn to DM, then share if appropriate.

That's not to say that it's not appropriate to share here. It is. I just think that if my table ever knew the depths of my OCD when gaming they'd be too afraid to game with me. As it stands, I run a pretty balanced game when in public company and focus on what they think is fun. Thankfully, my OCD is satisfied privately.


KB

 

[Greg Benage]

Lucky you

I know you've posted about GWM/SS a lot, and data isn't likely to change your mind. That's okay, because your experience matters more than data. But...apart from the combinations, it really doesn't make that big a difference (tables from Xetheral on GiitP):



If you're interested, I can post the table for attacks with advantage. In any case, if you have a baseline 65% chance to hit, you're on the "8" row (assuming you're keeping up with your attack ability score, in addition to taking the feats). If you have Archery fighting style, you're on the "6" row. So, anyway, I don't think it's that I'm "lucky," I just think its okay for martial PCs to take a feat that allows them to do a bit more damage with their heavy weapons and longbows.

Anyway - how does your Shield Brawler and Thrown Weapon Master feats work?

Shield Brawler
You are trained to use your shield as a weapon. You gain the following benefits:
• When you are wielding a shield and take the Attack action to make a melee attack with a weapon other than your shield, you may use a bonus action to make a melee weapon attack with your shield that deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage. (Crawford Note: I don't give a rat's ass whether you take this bonus action before, between, or after your regular attack(s).)

Thrown Weapon Master
You are exceptionally skilled with thrown weapons. You gain the following benefits:
• When you make a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, the weapon’s long range is doubled.
• Attacking at long range does not impose Disadvantage on your attack rolls with thrown weapons.
• You can draw a thrown weapon as part of your attack, without using your free object interaction.