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

[Warpiglet]

I have played D&D for many years. I played for the first time more than 35 years ago. I cannot say I knew what I was doing, but that was my start.

I primarily played AD&D, skipped 2^nd, played 3^rd, skipped 3.5, played 4^th once or twice and then embraced 5^th. It is amazing how a question of class balance is answered.

We never asked the question as kids. We played what sounded fun and interacted with the world. There was a little bit of competition later and perhaps jealousy when someone had multiple 18s, but we played what we wanted. With magic-users being obvious power brokers in the old days, there was less separation in my experience when exceptional strength was factored out. You could survive or die with back luck regardless and likewise contribute to the party (--in my group’s experience!).

Questions of usefulness were asked less often. A party wants to be able to turn undead (level draining sucks!) and everyone wants healing. If you really want healing though, a cleric is the man/woman/creature!

But what about magic-users? They are all powerful, right? Yes, unless they are hit for one point of damage. Kiss the spell goodbye. Grappled? If you can figure those rules out, they may not be able to cast at all and a few orcs can see to it that your fireball dies before you can imagine it.

In short, the complete interdependence of a group was encouraged by these mechanics. It seems to be less the case of late. We can “self-heal” cast in combat without worry (save for concentration requirements). In this context there are MANY questions about the “tier” of character and their relative capability level.

With all of that said, how much of the concerns about power are self-inflicted (i.e. not implicit in the mechanics of the base game)?

Of those who complain about the relative power of characters, have you considered dropping feats and multiclassing? Of those who have dropped feats and multiclassing, is there as much concern about power imblanaces? Lastly, of all the complaints about “bags of hit points” creatures “easily defeated,” is this as much of a concern with no optional rules?

(As an aside, I am not particularly hung up on fighters being better than X. I play what I have a craving to play but want to be as capable as I can but within the confines of my character concept).

 

[Nagol]

The game itself doesn't care about class/character imbalance. The designers do, somewhat. Many players at individual tables care.

The imbalance I've seen has less to do with inflicting damage in combat than it does with overcoming challenges in the other pillars of gameplay.

Let's take a hypothetical situation:

The DM picks up a adventure for his mid-to-high level group (say 7-9th level). The adventure requires the PC to discover the whereabouts of the BBEG, travel there under time constraint, launch an assault on his underwater base of operations, and has a final battle inside an iceberg that inflicts continuous cold damage on anyone unprepared. The adventure is designed to exploit the abilities of a well-rounded group of 4-6 PCs with at least one martial combat machine, one arcane caster, one divine caster, and one skill-based PC.

Scenario 1: the group is well-rounded. The adventure plays fine. Divine and arcane casters handle the discovery, travel, and life support needs of the group.
Scenario 2: the group is composed only of divine casters. Discovery, travel, assault are fine. Traps and alarms are triggered, but survivable. The final battle is a little tricky with the reduction in combat performance.
Scenario 3: the group is composed only of arcane casters. Discovery is a bit harder. Travel and assault are fine. Secondary tactics like summoning prove very useful during the assault to limit damage. The final assault fails because the environmental damage takes its toll. The PCs manage to escape with the last of their spells rather than TPK.
Scenario 4: the group is composed of martial combatants and skill-based classes only. Discovery is a challenge that ends up burning a lot of time. Travel duration exceeds the available time so the mission fails. That's OK though because even if the group managed to reach the underwater base, they can't survive the trip to the entrance and the environmental damage inside the iceberg would likely cause a TPK since escape options for the group are limited. The actual assault and final fight would have been a breeze though, should the PCs be handed a route to it!

 

[CydKnight]

I have not considered dropping feats or multi-classing for what some may perceive as a character power imbalance because it hasn't been an issue in my games yet. If it were, as a DM, I suppose I would single out the weakness(es) of the alleged over-powered character and try to design encounter(s) around neutralizing that character or at least inhibiting its effectiveness IF it becomes an issue. So I guess what I am saying is that this can largely be controlled by the DM through gameplay without disallowing certain optional rules that you might otherwise want to use.

I am not sure of the "who" in the "who complain about the relative power of characters" is referring. If it is other players in the group, I believe this will more often than not be a simple case of buyer's remorse. Perhaps they had delusions of grandeur of being some all-powerful, god-like character that the rest of the group followed and it simply isn't working out that way because they either didn't understand well enough the mechanics of the character they created or another players simply understands theirs better. It's tough to manage a group where everyone wants to "be the man" because not everyone can be the man. Dealing with player egos can be challenging.

In short, I try to encourage players to create the character they want to play and that their relative usefulness to the group will be more than simple combat effectiveness. That balance of effectiveness in more than one skill (not just combat) will serve them better. This especially true of new, inexperienced players who could lose interest quickly if things don't go their way.

 

[nswanson27]

I think you're conflating two issues here. Just because there's interdependence doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't power imbalance. And just because there isn't interdependence doesn't mean that there is power imbalance. And it certainly doesn't imply that one is caused by the other.
For example, the beastmaster ranger is regarded already as "imbalanced" by many. Not allowing feats or multiclassing isn't going to help this.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Balance problems are self created in so far as play preferences are self created. I.e., folks like you and me, we spent the last few decades playing what sounded cool as a theme, and didn't really care all that much about the math behind it unless it was REALLY glaring. And extra +1 or +2 here or there? Didn't matter. MUs being really powerful at high levels? Congrats, that's your reward for spending a long time being super fragile.

However, other people like to play with the numbers. Either maximizing mechanical superiority, or making sure every class option is mechanically the same effectiveness in all three pillars at all levels. For that sort of playstyle, even a smaller imbalance, and niche protection, is still an issue. For better or for worse (depending on your preference), 5e is not designed for the optimizer. It's going back to rulings over rules. So it's no surprise that optimizers are not happy with 5e and feel it either lacks things, or it's imbalanced. Unfortunately for them, I don't see a radical design philosophy in 5e to address all of their concerns. Especially since the design team has literally said that if we want to mold/modify/create things for 5e to fit our playstyle, we are more than welcome to do so, and even make some money off it (DMs Guild)

 

[Tony Vargas]

With all of that said, how much of the concerns about power are self-inflicted (i.e. not implicit in the mechanics of the base game)?

I'm not sure about that question. By definition, a concern is going to be experienced by someone, not implicit in the thing he's concerned about. Very tree-falling-in-the-forest, there.

But, balance is an actual quality games haves, and a critically important one in more complex games like RPGs. It's also one that, if you believe EGG's comments and admonishments in the 1e DMG, D&D has long, if very unsuccessfully, striven to achieve. (Well, or paid lip service to, I guess, can't go reading the minds of the dead, now can I?)

So, yes, balance is a real quality (even objective, sometimes aspects of it even quantifiable) of RPGs, and one that players are entirely justified to be concerned with.

[WARNING]Having just defended the concept of balance and the idea we should be concerned about it, I'm now going to argue the exact opposite, in the context of 5e.
I hope this advisory will prevent any cognitive whiplash...[/WARNING]

Of those who complain about the relative power of characters, have you considered dropping feats and multiclassing? Of those who have dropped feats and multiclassing, is there as much concern about power imblanaces?

If I'm not running for AL, I never use feats or multiclassing. Backgrounds and sub-classes are close enough for most concepts you can do with the existing classes & MCing+Feats. I don't trust that to 'balance' my game by itself, but it's two fewer player-driven factors to worry about when imposing balance in play (and two sub-systems I don't need to memorize).

5e gives me, as DM, lots of tools to impose balance. Some of the bigger/heavier ones include changing rules, adding modules, and dictating pacing. They're also more than a tad overt. More subtly, I can, in the short term, establish situations and make rulings to spotlight each PC & their contributions to the party's success, in turn. In a longer campaign, I could even resort to giving a consistently-lagging PC a potent magic item to address his shortcomings.

Lastly, of all the complaints about “bags of hit points” creatures “easily defeated,” is this as much of a concern with no optional rules?

Quite possibly moreso, so there's a little less flavor/interest on the PC side of the equation, so dressing up the monsters and challenges a little more can be helpful. Personally, though, those are the kinds of things I'd rather improv in the moment.

 

[The Human Target]

No.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

For my part, I did not worry about balance at first. But then when we ended up at 14th level with artifacts, multiple +5 magic items, more gold than any dragon hoard, and the like, suddenly the game wasn’t so fun anymore. I was left sitting there as a DM, wondering what the heck could I even do next with these adventurers?

And then later on, when I encountered my first power gamer, who exploited a bunch of broken rules, again, suddenly the rest of the players were stuck playing second fiddle to this munchkin, while he attempted to lord it over everyone else.

While certainly there was a more free-wheeling attitude back then, that doesn’t mean that the problems created by unbalanced options weren’t present.

All that being said, yes, I think there was greater codependence between the classes. Magic-users wouldn’t get far without the fighters in the front line who wouldn’t get far without the thieves to check for traps and everyone needed patching up by the cleric. It could still work without the ideal platonic adventuring party, but a DM had to take even more care.

We never asked the question as kids. We played what sounded fun and interacted with the world. There was a little bit of competition later and perhaps jealousy when someone had multiple 18s, but we played what we wanted.

 

[MostlyDm]

The game itself doesn't care about class/character imbalance. The designers do, somewhat. Many players at individual tables care.

The imbalance I've seen has less to do with inflicting damage in combat than it does with overcoming challenges in the other pillars of gameplay.

Let's take a hypothetical situation:

The DM picks up a adventure for his mid-to-high level group (say 7-9th level). The adventure requires the PC to discover the whereabouts of the BBEG, travel there under time constraint, launch an assault on his underwater base of operations, and has a final battle inside an iceberg that inflicts continuous cold damage on anyone unprepared. The adventure is designed to exploit the abilities of a well-rounded group of 4-6 PCs with at least one martial combat machine, one arcane caster, one divine caster, and one skill-based PC.

Scenario 1: the group is well-rounded. The adventure plays fine. Divine and arcane casters handle the discovery, travel, and life support needs of the group.
Scenario 2: the group is composed only of divine casters. Discovery, travel, assault are fine. Traps and alarms are triggered, but survivable. The final battle is a little tricky with the reduction in combat performance.
Scenario 3: the group is composed only of arcane casters. Discovery is a bit harder. Travel and assault are fine. Secondary tactics like summoning prove very useful during the assault to limit damage. The final assault fails because the environmental damage takes its toll. The PCs manage to escape with the last of their spells rather than TPK.
Scenario 4: the group is composed of martial combatants and skill-based classes only. Discovery is a challenge that ends up burning a lot of time. Travel duration exceeds the available time so the mission fails. That's OK though because even if the group managed to reach the underwater base, they can't survive the trip to the entrance and the environmental damage inside the iceberg would likely cause a TPK since escape options for the group are limited. The actual assault and final fight would have been a breeze though, should the PCs be handed a route to it!

So the only way to effectively discover the whereabouts of the BBEG are... what, in this scenario? Scrying doesn't work if you don't know who you're scrying for. Seems like you're assuming some kind of divination spell, but I can't for the life of me figure out what.

And the only way to make the time constraint is teleport? Which means the all divine casters fail at step 2, by the way, as 9th level divines have no mass transit magic. And this was for PCs 7-9 so it's worth mentioning that every party of 7th or 8th level also fails... Teleportation Circle is a 5th level spell.

Let's assume you didn't intend to limit the success criteria only to parties that have a 9th level Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard who happens to have Teleportation Circle. Is that fair to say? I'm going to say it anyway.

This is another option for how the all-martials party plays out: If we're truly all-martial, we only have 4 classes to choose from. Let's say we have a Totem Barbarian, a Battlemaster, a Shadow Monk, and an Assassin. Just because.

The rogue and the monk infiltrate the BBEG's outpost and steal documents that reveal his secret underwater lair. Since there are two of them, and they're very good at this, it's a bit of a cakewalk. Perhaps the Assassin even goes in the front door, masquerading as one of the BBEG's lieutenants. They don't even have to kill anybody! While they're there, they steal the BBEG's latest shipment of water-breathing potions that he sends to the humanoid minions who might need to visit him in his very inconvenient underwater base.

Meanwhile, the Fighter and the Barbarian have gone to a dangerous Griffon Aviary, where the beasts are raised by Cyclops trainers and sold for exorbitant prices. Without the silver-tongued assassin, they struggle to get a deal they can afford... until the Barbarian challenges the the head trainer to single combat for the right to be considered part of their clan. The barbarian, being an 8th level bear totem, trounces the Cyclops in a tough duel. Perhaps the Fighter has to do the same, if that sounds more fun to you.

The party regroups at a previously determined location with the location and the griffon mounts. They mount up and fly with all haste to their destination. Along the way, the Assassin realizes that the underwater keep is apparently also in some sort of perpetual ice-fog that can kill. So they briefly detour to the Tower of Golems, where a powerful and eccentric wizard lives. Dealing with him can be dangerous, especially if you wish to try to buy or sell any powerful magical items... but simple potions and scrolls can be had for those with sufficient coin. As 7th-9th level adventurers, of course, our party has plenty of coin. They buy a few potions of cold resistance, then it's back to the skies.

They arrive at the base, quaff their potions of water breathing, and fight their way through. They drink the cold resistance potions before entering the final chamber, and mop the floor with the BBEG and his minions. Even with cold resistance, though, the Assassin and the Fighter are killed from the mounting environmental damage and accumulated damage from the combat, since they lack a dedicated healer.

The Barbarian and the Monk drag their friends out of the lair and start heading back to civilization. They'll have to donate a large fund to the Church of the Redeemer in order to get their friends raised, but that's the cost of being an adventurer. Luckily, the local king is going to pay them a fortune for saving his kingdom, so it should wash out in the end.

 

[Gadget]

Of those who complain about the relative power of characters, have you considered dropping feats and multiclassing?

Yes, I have. Mainly because I think feat design in 5e is quite poor (probably one of the reasons it is optional) and they have been a bugaboo of power creep and endless splat in the last two editions. I don't like the multiclassing rules not only due to your balance implication, but it strikes me as a class system trying to have its cake and eat it too.

Of those who have dropped feats and multiclassing, is there as much concern about power imblanaces?

The Way of Four Elements Monk is still quite weak and the PHB Beast Master Ranger still lacks a certain...Ommph. The Chaos Sorcerer is still quite dependent on the DM for one of its main sub-class benefits. Others may have different observations.

Lastly, of all the complaints about “bags of hit points” creatures “easily defeated,” is this as much of a concern with no optional rules?

It does help mitigate the issue, sure. Play style, experience of the players, magic item distribution all factor in as well. It may be that instead of curb stomping that high-CR-monster 9 or 10 levels below the CR, your doing it 7 or 8 levels lower. Even without feats and multiclassing, player abilities and synergies tend to rise quite quickly as levels go up, and while the relative simplicity of 5e compared to predecessors can be welcome, the action economy and bounded accuracy of 5e can make powerful 'solo' style monsters quite vulnerable, even with Legendary Actions.