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

[nswanson27]

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.

True. I was only responding the "bag of hit points" subtopic. On the other hand, I've heard many times a DM will say "I thought battle X would be easy for you guys, but it almost took you out". So yeah, I guess part of the reason why there is dice in the game to begin with - not just to simulate realism, but to create uncertainty.

 

[Lanefan]

What recruits are available and their terms of employment is entirely under DM fiat

More or less, yes, along with some random dice rolling (sometimes you can easily find a competent recruit, other times you look for days only to find the rum-soaked castoff who's now looking for a fifth party to join having been thrown out of the first four).

-- it is as much a form of largesse as providentially finding a cache of water breathing potions right before you need them. I know many DMs that prefer not to have any or many NPCs mixed in with the party (which I suspect is one of the reasons for the decline in cohorts/henchmen inside the ruleset over the editions)

Having lots of NPCs in the party does bog things down a bit, for sure; but I still mourn the decline of henches and "adventuring associates".

and I know many groups that chafe at having to rely on a NPC for pivotal abilities.

Well if nobody wants to play a character that brings said pivotal abilities to the table, the choice becomes one of a) recruit an NPC to fill the gap, or b) go without. I'll take the NPC every time.

Ultimately, non-casters are dependent on DM whim if they want to engage a more fantastical adventure that requires divinatory, environmental survival, or magical travel requirements. Perseus cannot try to kill the gorgon without the DM providing winged sandals. The provided aegis on the other hand is just convenience.

Spell casters rarely have the need to depend on DM whim in these regards.

It kinda makes sense that more fantastical adventures might require more fantastical characters to succeed in them. On a broader scale, it's also possible that a bunch of players who all choose to play warrior types could be - even without realizing it or putting it into words - looking for a less-fantastical and possibly grittier style of game.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well if nobody wants to play a character that brings said pivotal abilities to the table, the choice becomes one of a) recruit an NPC to fill the gap, or b) go without.

Or, c) choose a game that isn't locked into niche protection.

5e /is/ such a game. The Cleric is no longer the must-have heal-bot, the Druid, Bard, and Paladin can stand in for him in that. The Thief is no longer the only guy who can even try to disarm a trap - anyone can, and with the right Background do it ok - the Bard can be just as good at it. The fighter is no longer the only toe-to-toe type (even discounting it's old sub-classes, the Palladin and Ranger), the Barbarian and moon Druid can also hold the line, and War Clerics, Valor Bards, and the like can even step into the breach as needed.

Casters in general certainly don't need any niche protection.

 

[mflayermonk]

Go all Barbarians and kill things before they damage you.

 

[Ogre Mage]

In most of the D&D groups I played with the balance problems usually revolved around aggregate party power rather than bickering between players. Eventually, the DM would start having increasing difficultly balancing encounters and would start getting frustrated; this was a sign the campaign was coming to an end soon. If individual PCs were particularly powerful that breaking point might come sooner, but the main concern was presenting balanced encounters for the party. In short, it was more of a DM vs. party problem. Most players didn't trip about one PC being moderately more effective than others. On the rare occasions that it did become a problem, one of two things was going on:

1. One player was munchkinizing to a ridiculous degree.
2. A player had a weak character and DID NOT CARE that he was not contributing to the party. This frankly drove me crazy.

As for the good old days, I was there and daresay the balance problems were not any better back then. Remember the infamous splatbooks of 2E? *Cough* Complete Psionics Handbook *Cough* Complete Book of Elves *Cough* Bladesinger *Cough*

 

[pemerton]

The bottom line is that if you constantly fret about imbalance, you'll find it everywhere. If you just chill, have fun, and tell great stories, you'll be more worried about what's going to happen TO your character, rather than what someone else's character can do that you can't.

People who care about balance as an element of PC build aren't "uptight". People who care about the relative ability of various players, via their PCs, to make a difference to the fiction, aren't "uptight".

Not everyone who plays RPGs is just "along for the ride", hoping to chip in the odd die roll or the odd bit of colour here or there. It's not the only way to play the game.

(Heck, it's clearly not the sort of game Gygax's DMG talks about - which, interestingly enough, is also chock-full of conern over the mechanical balance of the game. Especially, but by no means only, in respect of magic items.)

 

[pemerton]

I would expect that a lot of this falls to the DM. I don't think that there's anything wrong with a little power imbalance (if it even exists) between classes as long as there's is something for each character to do. It only becomes an issue when one character is the star in all situations.

It's like the Avengers. Hulk and Thor are certainly more powerful....but there is still stuff for Black Widow and Hawkeye to do.

Another way to look at it is this: a superhero game might be designed to have mechanics that help ensure that Black Widow's player is able to contribute as much as Thor's player (eg metagame mechanics of some form).

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.

But as [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] mentioned, this is not universally enjoyed. Even back in the day not everyone used henchmen (or hirelings) as part of the game; and I think it's even less common to use them in contemporary D&D play.

If you are running low-magic there are two possibilities. Either the group contains sufficient spell casters to handle an adventure type or the adventure can't be run for the group.

<snip>

4e came the closest to having martial be comparable in the other pillars though it did it by reducing the magical effects available (and then bolstered them with more free form effects with DM fiat combined with page 42/skill challenge results) as much as by bolstering martial abilities (especially if you used a playstyle similar to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]).

It kinda makes sense that more fantastical adventures might require more fantastical characters to succeed in them.

If you're running the game in the way that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] or I might, then you won't have a set-up quite like the one [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] described in his early post in the thread: for instance, there wouldn't be a timeline that the PCs have to meet in order to succeed; rather, the sort of time-driven pressure/failure that Nagol describes would be an outcome of resolution (probably in a skill challenge). Likewise, the presence of handy water breathing potions in a surface lair would be more likely to be the outcome of a successful check or initial skill challenge, than something preset by the GM.

Which goes to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s point (and also to my response to [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], about superhero RPGing). One of the things that will determine how fantastical a non-spellcasting character might be is the approach to framing and resolution. How much is determined in advance and how much is open to be determined as an aspect of PC success; and what sorts of actions can be declared for those PCs? (Eg cue Beowulf's playe declaring an Endurance check to make it to the bottom of the lake; or cue Black Widow's player declaring a Streetwise and/or Thievery check to find the cache of water breathing potions; etc.)

 

[MichaelSomething]

What you people need is Aquaman's Rousing Song of Heroism!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE8C1WWixgc

 

[Mishihari Lord]

The OP is absolutely correct. Balance. which is most commonly argued in the form of dps/dpr, becomes less important with greater independence. It doesn't matter as much that guy 1 is doing X while guy 2 is doing Y when both are necessary for the party's success. Balance can only become a legitimate issue when a character becomes unnecessary.

I'm a big fan of the old spell-interruption rules. When those were removed the game lost a lot of tactical depth.

 

[Hathorym]

People who care about balance as an element of PC build aren't "uptight". People who care about the relative ability of various players, via their PCs, to make a difference to the fiction, aren't "uptight".

Not everyone who plays RPGs is just "along for the ride", hoping to chip in the odd die roll or the odd bit of colour here or there. It's not the only way to play the game.

(Heck, it's clearly not the sort of game Gygax's DMG talks about - which, interestingly enough, is also chock-full of conern over the mechanical balance of the game. Especially, but by no means only, in respect of magic items.)

I don't recall ever using the term "uptight" at any point, nor was I criticizing other ways to play the game. I'm well aware that the way my group plays is not for everyone. The point, which I guess you missed while frantically typing this defensive screed, was that it's okay to just have fun and not worry so much about imbalance. It's a game, not a full contact team sport. Not everyone has to produce equal results in every round, and not everyone has to fret about their DPR.

If that's the way you and your group prefer the game to be played, then awesome. I'm glad you are able to do something you enjoy. We would most likely not enjoy each other's tables. But dude, when you go so far out of your way to be offended by an opinion as minor as my own, maybe you should consider "uptight" as being apt.