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

[Corwin]

Wait...does your party, on meeting each other and seeing the group is comprised of 5 [warriors/wizards/rogues/clerics - pick one] and nothing else, not realize they're short a few key elements and go out and recruit some people to fill the gaps???

Yeah. I seem to recall reading a story a long time ago, I think they even made a movie about it, where a bunch of warrior dwarves realized they had no burglar. So they "recruited" a [halfling] that could help with the stealthy stuff they planned to do at a dragon's lair.

Even a bunch of thick-headed dwarven warriors can see when they are short a necessary skillset.

 

[Warpiglet]

My favorite class in 5e has been the Warlock and exclusively the Blade Pact version. I am fine with playing this as a single class. That should show that I am not worried about being outclassed per se, though even here I think most concerns are overblown.

So for me, there is little need to drop feats or multiclassing. I am not terribly worried about MOAR POWER per se, but I see many, many complaints about balance. I would really like to know how many of those who struggle with balance have tried a more basic game. My guess is that few have tried. I am really wondering from a design standpoint if the game is more balanced and polished in its basic form. Frankly, I wonder if the design team focused on balance of single classed characters with multiclassing an afterthought.

I don't desire to test this out. I like getting a feat here and there and (gasp) added one level of sorcerer (gasp!) to a warlock because I had a hankering for additional spell slots. Other times I did not feel it was a fit and went single classed.

 

[Warpiglet]

Yeah. I seem to recall reading a story a long time ago, I think they even made a movie about it, where a bunch of warrior dwarves realized they had no burglar. So they "recruited" a [halfling] that could help with the stealthy stuff they planned to do at a dragon's lair.

Even a bunch of thick-headed dwarven warriors can see when they are short a necessary skillset.

That's crazy. Never heard of such a thing!

 

[MostlyDm]

In a low-magic game with no or limited casters in the party, the group simply cannot go on certain adventures: exploring the underwater ruins (water breathing), surviving the heat-drenched volcano rim (fire resistance), discovering the mural is actually a subtle magic portal to somewhere else (detect magic), getting 300 miles across a sea in less than a week, are all beyond their capability for some very simple examples and thus adventures/goals requiring such activities can't be introduced/followed up by the group.

In a sandbox this is less of an issue since the group can choose what they do. If the DM in that environment wants to give the group the option to go on a certain adventure the he needs to offer largesse by introducing sufficient resources to offset the low magic capability of the group -- just like you inserted the magic potions which were exactly what the group needed to continue to the next stage of the adventure.



1) he may not have humanoid minions
2) he may have humanoid minions but they can provide their own method of water breathing a la spell casting or inherent ability
3) he may have he may have humanoid minions and he provides a method to survive underwater a la aboleth, nixie, or spell casting when they visit
4) he may have humanoid minions but they don't travel to his underwater base at all because it is beyond them

So it is only "natural" if the adventure designer decides to make it natural either because it fits the initial conception or the designer recognises the need to introduce a mechanism to allow the group to proceed.



NPC allies are a form of DM largesse. The group cannot do 'X' where X requires spell casting unless the DM provides a source of 'X' -- either through item(s) or by introducing others outside the group who are willing to provide the 'X' required. Spell casting heavy groups simply do not have that dependency.

Currently, you aren't drawing a distinction between a low magic party and a low magic setting.

In a low magic setting, even a sandbox, there will be far less adventures that explicitly call for magical solutions. I suppose in a sense there still are... if a major event happens 500 miles away, teleport could have gotten you involved. But since nobody can do that, the idea that you could have done so doesn't occur to the characters, so such an event wouldn't be seen as a potential thread to investigate. It would just be... news, really: "X big event happened 500 miles away."

For a low magic party, magic using NPCs and items are not really largesse at all. They're simply a feature of the game world. Why wouldn't they be available? In my standard-D&D levels of magic campaign worlds, if you wish to seek out someone with magical abilities... you can. Of course. Because such people exist in the world.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

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)?

Literally all of them - we create concern. We choose to react accordingly. Luckily we also get to react accordingly and realise we create concern.

As a wise Clooney once said:

''It's only a problem if you make it a problem.''

 

[nswanson27]

My favorite class in 5e has been the Warlock and exclusively the Blade Pact version. I am fine with playing this as a single class. That should show that I am not worried about being outclassed per se, though even here I think most concerns are overblown.

So for me, there is little need to drop feats or multiclassing. I am not terribly worried about MOAR POWER per se, but I see many, many complaints about balance. I would really like to know how many of those who struggle with balance have tried a more basic game. My guess is that few have tried. I am really wondering from a design standpoint if the game is more balanced and polished in its basic form. Frankly, I wonder if the design team focused on balance of single classed characters with multiclassing an afterthought.

I don't desire to test this out. I like getting a feat here and there and (gasp) added one level of sorcerer (gasp!) to a warlock because I had a hankering for additional spell slots. Other times I did not feel it was a fit and went single classed.

I feel like MCing was done pretty well. There are some subtleties for certain class combos that show up on Sage Advice that shows that the designers had thought it through. What don't think was thought through as well were feats. I mean, you can see huge power imbalances by just looking at them in isolation - not even worrying about how they synergize with different class/build combos. And actually (using an ASI for a comparative baseline), I'm more surprised at how many bad feats there are than how many super-good ones there are.

 

[Warpiglet]

I feel like MCing was done pretty well. There are some subtleties for certain class combos that show up on Sage Advice that shows that the designers had thought it through. What don't think was thought through as well were feats. I mean, you can see huge power imbalances by just looking at them in isolation - not even worrying about how they synergize with different class/build combos. And actually (using an ASI for a comparative baseline), I'm more surprised at how many bad feats there are than how many super-good ones there are.

I am wondering how much this impacts concerns about the "bags of hit points" creatures. In other words, for those who are concerned that it is too easy to take down CR whatever creature, would they find the fight more satisfying without great weapon master, etc.? Just curious. I agree with what others have said as well, its only a real problem if you care. And that is just it...some people seem to care.

 

[Tony Vargas]

3.5 had Inherent bonuses in addition to WBL; they were in effect yet another bonus type that was gained through wishes/books.

OK, that rings a bell. Maybe it was under another name, but I'm sure I recall an option to sub in something in place of expected enhancement bonuses for games w/o the standard wealth/level/items. (Somebody help me out here? I hope I'm not remembering someone's house rule...)

4e introduced inherent bonuses in place of magical attack bonuses. 4e came the closest to having martial be comparable in the other pillars though it did it by reducing the magical effects available as much as by bolstering martial abilities

Rather like it balanced the 'combat pillar,' really. Give martial classes much more, cut back casters dramatically, meet in the middle.

"'Sufficient' spell casters to handle an adventure type" in a low magic game is likely to be zero.

Adventure type can depend on the setting type, too. In a low-magic /setting/, there might be a dearth of adventure types that absolutely require magic to complete successfully (because, very often, magic is required to overcome magic) - by the same token, there'll be a lot of significant challenges that can be trivialized when 'rare' magic is available (like, every day that you have a caster in the party).

Adventures in a low magic game are not going to require options that the party doesn't have.
I doubt that any DM is going to require something to complete the adventure that the party that they are running the adventure for does not have access to.

Yep, mentioned that above - the DM can always tailor adventures (and available resources) to the party, to assure their success (or reasonable chance of success, as desired).

 

[nswanson27]

I am wondering how much this impacts concerns about the "bags of hit points" creatures. In other words, for those who are concerned that it is too easy to take down CR whatever creature, would they find the fight more satisfying without great weapon master, etc.? Just curious. I agree with what others have said as well, its only a real problem if you care. And that is just it...some people seem to care.

I think the answer to this is a pretty deep and situational topic. For me personally, having a "perfectly" balanced battle every single time breaks the realism a little and hurts the game, sorta like how a lot of the big explosion action movies have similar plot lines, and the "epic, nail-biting fight" at the end - once you've seen one you've seen them all. I mean, when I hit level 7, did all the level 2 groups of baddies in the world just disappear? I would expect a few (not all) fights to be a cakewalk, because that's what would logically happen if I keep improving as a character. It doesn't take the fun away - it fits.
The other thing is that it depends on the "people that seem to care". Is this coming from the player perspective or the DM perspective? And if the latter, has the DM actually asked the players if this is a problem, or is the DM just assuming that it's a problem without asking them because... reasons.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the answer to this is a pretty deep and situational topic. For me personally, having a "perfectly" balanced battle every single time breaks the realism a little and hurts the game

I get the concept, but don't see how it's even on the level of 'self-created problem.' Even if you had a hypothetical (impossible) perfectly-balanced set of encounter-building guidelines, they'd just /allow/ you to create that perfectly-balanced battle, not force you to - you could go as much over or under those guidelines as you wanted to get the level of challenge you want, and be confident that's what would be delivered.

You wouldn't even really be able to worry that, as DM, that'd leave you never-to-be-surprised, because players will /always/ effing surprise you (sometimes not even in that infuriating a way), and you've got the random factor of the dice going, too.