D&D 5E Balance, the final finalist word. Finally

[Sacrosanct]

And what is the final final final word? Attaining balance in a game like D&D is impossible because in the context of a game like D&D, balance is subjective.

What I mean by that, is that what is considered good balance varies from person to person, and playstyle to playstyle. Some people want every PC to be mechanically balanced every round of combat. Some want every encounter to be balanced. All the way up to people who actually want large variations from encounter to encounter (niche protection), where if balance happens over the course of a campaign, then it's a balanced game. Think of like in AD&D where magic users were weak until higher levels, then became the more powerful. Over the course of the campaign, it balanced out. Therefore, it's possible to have two preferences that conflict with each other. If you have PCs balanced every round or encounter, it's impossible to also achieve niche protection.

Can we agree on this?

Therefore, it is my final final final ruling that any thread that laments or tries to fix balance in D&D as an objective truth is inherently incorrect. Every one of those threads are only applicable to the person's personal tastes, and thus the game is not necessarily inherently imbalanced by default. The designer's considerations of what the scope was and what the game wanted to achieve should always be taken into account. And as we all know, my opinion matters more than anyone else's

 

[nswanson27]

And what is the final final final word? Attaining balance in a game like D&D is impossible because in the context of a game like D&D, balance is subjective.

What I mean by that, is that what is considered good balance varies from person to person, and playstyle to playstyle. Some people want every PC to be mechanically balanced every round of combat. Some want every encounter to be balanced. All the way up to people who actually want large variations from encounter to encounter (niche protection), where if balance happens over the course of a campaign, then it's a balanced game. Think of like in AD&D where magic users were weak until higher levels, then became the more powerful. Over the course of the campaign, it balanced out. Therefore, it's possible to have two preferences that conflict with each other. If you have PCs balanced every round or encounter, it's impossible to also achieve niche protection.

Can we agree on this?

Therefore, it is my final final final ruling that any thread that laments or tries to fix balance in D&D as an objective truth is inherently incorrect. Every one of those threads are only applicable to the person's personal tastes, and thus the game is not necessarily inherently imbalanced by default. The designer's considerations of what the scope was and what the game wanted to achieve should always be taken into account. And as we all know, my opinion matters more than anyone else's

Indeed - except that last sentence should refer to me, and not you. I'm thinking about starting another thread to discuss that.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Balance? You're soaking in it.

 

[Li Shenron]

And what is the final final final word? Attaining balance in a game like D&D is impossible because in the context of a game like D&D, balance is subjective.

What I mean by that, is that what is considered good balance varies from person to person, and playstyle to playstyle. Some people want every PC to be mechanically balanced every round of combat. Some want every encounter to be balanced. All the way up to people who actually want large variations from encounter to encounter (niche protection), where if balance happens over the course of a campaign, then it's a balanced game. Think of like in AD&D where magic users were weak until higher levels, then became the more powerful. Over the course of the campaign, it balanced out. Therefore, it's possible to have two preferences that conflict with each other. If you have PCs balanced every round or encounter, it's impossible to also achieve niche protection.

Can we agree on this?

Therefore, it is my final final final ruling that any thread that laments or tries to fix balance in D&D as an objective truth is inherently incorrect. Every one of those threads are only applicable to the person's personal tastes, and thus the game is not necessarily inherently imbalanced by default. The designer's considerations of what the scope was and what the game wanted to achieve should always be taken into account. And as we all know, my opinion matters more than anyone else's

Yes!

But... are you really really really sure? Don't you want to discuss it a few decades more?

 

[Satyrn]

Therefore, it is my final final final ruling that any thread that laments or tries to fix balance in D&D as an objective truth is inherently incorrect.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I try to balance D&D with eating healthy and getting plenty of sunlight, but . . .

Oh, who am I kidding? I've never tried to balance D&D.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have done the impossible! I have balanced D&D!

 

[5ekyu]

And what is the final final final word? Attaining balance in a game like D&D is impossible because in the context of a game like D&D, balance is subjective.

What I mean by that, is that what is considered good balance varies from person to person, and playstyle to playstyle. Some people want every PC to be mechanically balanced every round of combat. Some want every encounter to be balanced. All the way up to people who actually want large variations from encounter to encounter (niche protection), where if balance happens over the course of a campaign, then it's a balanced game. Think of like in AD&D where magic users were weak until higher levels, then became the more powerful. Over the course of the campaign, it balanced out. Therefore, it's possible to have two preferences that conflict with each other. If you have PCs balanced every round or encounter, it's impossible to also achieve niche protection.

Can we agree on this?

Therefore, it is my final final final ruling that any thread that laments or tries to fix balance in D&D as an objective truth is inherently incorrect. Every one of those threads are only applicable to the person's personal tastes, and thus the game is not necessarily inherently imbalanced by default. The designer's considerations of what the scope was and what the game wanted to achieve should always be taken into account. And as we all know, my opinion matters more than anyone else's

The only bit i would add other than agreement is my usual take on it - value and effectiveness is not only subjective but circumstantial.

The value of any trait or feature or ability is seen in play by the degree to which it matters - the intersection of the sets of "what we need" and "what we have".

So, one game may be running against the giants or invasion of the giants and a whole lot of big brutes make up an awful lot of the opposition we need to take down. Giants do not tend to sneak as much. So certain abilities and certain resistances play better for that campaign, not always but so much of the time and so many of the critical encounters to make it change the value of some abilities compared to others.

Another game may feature "lich rising" and focus a lot on undead and magical threats...

another might see a lot of time in the underdark vs drow...

another may feature a lot of urban adventures and a league of assassins as the primary opposition and big shakers...

While each of these campaigns will have some of their scenarios turn out similar, each would have a major thematic series of serious encounters that follow different, unique to their setting, flavors and each would show in play different effectiveness for a variety of useful and needed features.

So, what we have here is a case where whatever degree balance matters to the group, it will be more than anything else shown or dismissed by the choices and setting and the capability of the Dm and the players to balance things out by choices and options.

 

[Zardnaar]

We should simply it.

Archer. 1d6 dmage.
Spellcaster ranged. 1d6
Melee 1d8
Meleee (striker) 2d6

Some subclasses could be a bit OP though and gain an extra +1 or +2 on the damage roll.

Oh oh oh we could also cut out all the vancian spells and replace them with powers or somethign. Then we could have d6, d8 or d10 and hgh damage could include IDK ability score damage to things that make no sense. Imagine an elemental sorcerer that could add its strength to spell damage. We could make that a stirker.

Sorcerer 1d6+char+strength.

For extra dice of damage we could ad extra W and keyword it. A striker could deal an extra dice of damage maybe at level 21 but lets make it in the epic levels. I don't like the save system either lets just replace it with static fort/ref/will defences. Proficinecy system can stay I suppose.

We also need a warlord. Its a valuable and popular class everyone wants it.Sneak attack is also OP lets limit it to 2 dice.


These are all great ideas everyone will love and and 5.5 will sell like hot cakes. I just need to get 3 friends to agree with me and some mods who can ban everyone, any one who disagrees with me can go on an ignore list.

because balnce.

This is final, finally, finitio, and is the final s erm ultimate solution. Finally final right. 4E 4eva erm I mean 5.5 to improve the game you are all bad people for liking vancian yay NADs. We can hardcode boredom into the game to pressure you into playing it.

Finally honest cross my pinky finger.

 

[ad_hoc]

And then there is the controversial aspect of the skill of the would be balancer.

The truth of the matter is that most people have no idea what balance would actually look like. I'm not a game designer but I have played games competitively (one semi-professionally for 5 years). There is a lot going on in D&D and simply making 2 characters deal the same damage won't cut it.

I am nowhere near qualified to tackle it, and I think most are even less qualified. I think the 5e design team did an incredible job of balancing the game while keeping characters/archetypes distinctive.

The Dunning-Kruger effect applies here.