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

[Tony Vargas]

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?

First, of course, 5e doesn't use formal role, and doesn't seem to depend on niche protection, per se (that is, there's very little in the way of vital functional contributions that can be made by only one class).

Where the problem comes in is matching broad concept to contribution. If you want to play 'an arcane caster' (not much detail, but hey, it's just an example), you can certainly wiggle that basic concept/preference around to contributing DPR (a Warlock or EK), contributing support (Bard for healing, any of the others for buffing), contributing lockdown control (Bard or Wizard), contributing crowd control (Wizard/Sorcerer), contributing out of combat (Wizard, Bard), checks (bard), etc, etc. No problem. If you want to play a character who doesn't cast spells in combat you could still choose a Monk, a Barbarian or a Paladin (just use your slots to smite, lay on hands isn't technically a spell) in addition to a non-AT/EK Rogue/Fighter - and that can cover DPR lavishly (all those classes can do some good DPR), and support, modestly (Paladin), and checks (Rogue), and I'm sure Monks are good for something, too. But your range of contributions has lost some depth. Say you don't want any sort of magic at all in your concept. You're down to Berserker, Champion, BM, Thief & Assassin. Possibly contributions are DPR (all) and checks (Thief & Assassin).

So as long as at least some of you want to play casters, you can probably negotiate needed contributions and cover all your bases. But the all-'martial' party is off the table.

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,

There are solutions, and there are work-arounds. 'Play a class you don't want to,' is not a solution to the problem of a party lacking a vital contribution like healing. A wider range of more appealing concepts able to provide the vital contribution is a solution. You can see that happening as the game evolved with the Cleric, specifically. Healing went from Cleric-exclusive in 0e, the Cleric clearly best (and only viable option at first level in 1e) with the Paladin & Druid also-rans, to a variety of Priests & the Druid all able the heal well enough, and the Bard & Paladin getting to do a little in 2e, to the Cleric, Druid, Favored Soul, Bard, and Paladin - and anyone able to use a WoCLW, being able to step up in 3e, to the Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Artificer, Shaman, and Ardent all fully contributing leaders in 4e, with the Paladin & others secondary, to Essentials adding a Druid sub-class to that list.

5e, while eschewing role, offers fewer traditional-Cleric alternatives than the game had just before it was introduced. The Cleric, Bard & Druid were retained and quite adequate at the role, the Paladin, likewise, stayed a strong secondary, and the Ranger distant one. The Warlord, Shaman, Artificer, and Ardent were all dropped from the PH. The UA Artificer doesn't seem too strongly tending that way, and I don't think we've seen anything quite like an Ardent sub-class for the Mystic. So 5e has a ways to go, to get caught up. And that's just in the one most notorious case.

Really, the only contributions where there's no such issues are DPR and basic (easy-moderate 'warm body') checks.

once you give the non-casters said wider range of capacity how will that fly in a party with a more conventional character mix?

The same way it flies in an all-caster party.
Well, not quite the same - the hang-glider will probably have a lower maneuverability class than the Fly spell.

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?

'No' and 'no more so than the casters already are (so kinda, yeah),' respectively.

 

[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?

::shrug:: The all-good-in-combat issue is one to take up with the designers.

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).

Good on you - that's more or less what I'd probably do also.

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.

And if that potential adventure is dead so what, as long as the non-casters seek out another adventure ot replace it and thus keep things going.

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!

That's a world-building fail, in my view. I've never liked the PCs-are-special-snowflakes model any further than they're only special because it's their story being played out rather than that other adventuring group over there or the six others operating in the northern forests.

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.

Were the rest of the group stranded somewhere with no other way out? If yes, bad on the caster. If no, what's stopping them from going out into the field sans caster and finding adventure on their own?

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).

Yes, 5e design - for all its good intentions - isn't perfect; and you've just hit several of the more glaring misses all at once...nice shooting!

I recall there being speculation that world-building had largely been left out of the 5e DMG because it was going to get full treatment in its own book sometime. Whatever became of that?

As for henches-cohorts-etc., even though 5e has limited guidance for such I suppose there's nothing stopping a PC or even a whole group from hiring some associates and thus forcing the DM to make some rulings.

Magic item availability...well, that's another can o' worms entirely and is, as I've pointed out (was it in this thread, even?), an unenforceable rule as written.

Lanefan

 

[Nagol]

::shrug:: The all-good-in-combat issue is one to take up with the designers.

Next time I talk to one I'll be sure to mention it.

Good on you - that's more or less what I'd probably do also.

And if that potential adventure is dead so what, as long as the non-casters seek out another adventure ot replace it and thus keep things going.
That's a world-building fail, in my view. I've never liked the PCs-are-special-snowflakes model any further than they're only special because it's their story being played out rather than that other adventuring group over there or the six others operating in the northern forests.

Different strokes and all that. The only problem is the game leaves non-casters in a hard place if the world doesn't have resources to use in place of spell casting. It was a problem for me because I was one of the non-casters who wanted to do that adventure. It wasn't a problem for the DM who could take it or leave it and it wasn't a problem for the two casters. So I promptly retired my character and brought in a full caster. Not because I wanted to play one or the group was short, but because I wanted a say.

Were the rest of the group stranded somewhere with no other way out? If yes, bad on the caster. If no, what's stopping them from going out into the field sans caster and finding adventure on their own?

The party was effectively trapped. At the end of a mission they found a one-way teleport portal and hadn't located any alternate way back when the Wizard declared he was leaving and everyone who didn't want to be stranded could come along now.

Yes, 5e design - for all its good intentions - isn't perfect; and you've just hit several of the more glaring misses all at once...nice shooting!

I recall there being speculation that world-building had largely been left out of the 5e DMG because it was going to get full treatment in its own book sometime. Whatever became of that?

The misses aren't glaring, like I said most DMs I'm talked with throughout the editions never think about it. They either compensate unconsciously or they don't. The misses are predictable however. There were threads during the anticipation of 5e where I basically said the same things.

World-building had the same fate as the book full of alternate game modules. Vapourware isn't just a computer thing. In this case it really isn't even vapourware so much as the ever hopeful fan base wishing really hard.

As for henches-cohorts-etc., even though 5e has limited guidance for such I suppose there's nothing stopping a PC or even a whole group from hiring some associates and thus forcing the DM to make some rulings.

Magic item availability...well, that's another can o' worms entirely and is, as I've pointed out (was it in this thread, even?), an unenforceable rule as written.

Lanefan

Well he can't hire those he can't find so I guess the DM needs to play along sufficiently to get to the point where rulings need to be made.

 

[Garthanos]

::shrug:: The all-good-in-combat issue is one to take up with the designers.

Meh I think its an action adventure convention that places physical/obvious conflict high on stage, even the "non-combatants" are about inspiring allies and distracting enemies, they are plucky and do not hide from the battle because somethings are important!!! etc.