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

[BookBarbarian]

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.

I balance it with Whisky and Ginger Ale.

A fine balance it is.

 

[Sunseeker]

No, we can't agree on that, and the argument is dumb.

The fact that everyone has opinions on things is irrelevant to the question of "Can we balance this?" To which the answer is almost always "Yes." The fact that some people don't want to do what is necessary to achieve balance, don't believe balance is actually possible, don't believe balance itsself is necessary or just plum don't care remains completely 100% irrelevant.

This is like suggesting we can't have have a good car because people disagree on what makes a good vehicle. Obviously we've been able to build good cars. There are also ways to build objectively bad cars.

While yes, when someone posts a thread that says "Here's how to FIX D&D!" we should always assume what they are saying is "Here's how I THINK we should FIX D&D!" To this I have no disagreement. But to suggest that these suggestions are nothing more than opinion and therefore all equally valid and thus all equally worthless is absurdity. This is the same kind of un-logic that tricks people into the trap of thinking those who espouse genocide have equal opinions to those who want to treat all humans fairly.

There are objective non-opinion ways to improve D&D. To balance it in the encounter, to balance it over the campaign, to balance classes against classes, and to balance different possible options against each other. Sometimes people's suggestions contain these elements. Sometimes they don't.

4E for example dramatically balanced the game from 3.5 Both classes against classes, in the encounter and over the campaign. It was objectively a more balanced D&D. Problem? People didn't like it. I'm not saying we have to pull a 4E to balance D&D. But I am saying it is possible as it has been done.

 

[CM]

Sorry I didn't have time to read the thread but I'm sure that Fragarach and the other Final Word swords have perfectly fine balance. Aren't they all at least +2 weapons?

I don't even see why this is an issue.

 

[BookBarbarian]

No, we can't agree on that, and the argument is dumb.

The fact that everyone has opinions on things is irrelevant to the question of "Can we balance this?" To which the answer is almost always "Yes." The fact that some people don't want to do what is necessary to achieve balance, don't believe balance is actually possible, don't believe balance itsself is necessary or just plum don't care remains completely 100% irrelevant.

This is like suggesting we can't have have a good car because people disagree on what makes a good vehicle. Obviously we've been able to build good cars. There are also ways to build objectively bad cars.

While yes, when someone posts a thread that says "Here's how to FIX D&D!" we should always assume what they are saying is "Here's how I THINK we should FIX D&D!" To this I have no disagreement. But to suggest that these suggestions are nothing more than opinion and therefore all equally valid and thus all equally worthless is absurdity. This is the same kind of un-logic that tricks people into the trap of thinking those who espouse genocide have equal opinions to those who want to treat all humans fairly.

There are objective non-opinion ways to improve D&D. To balance it in the encounter, to balance it over the campaign, to balance classes against classes, and to balance different possible options against each other. Sometimes people's suggestions contain these elements. Sometimes they don't.

4E for example dramatically balanced the game from 3.5 Both classes against classes, in the encounter and over the campaign. It was objectively a more balanced D&D. Problem? People didn't like it. I'm not saying we have to pull a 4E to balance D&D. But I am saying it is possible as it has been done.

I don't think the OP's post targets "This isn't working for my table, but this does" posts at all.


4E's example is a lesson that a good number people who like to spend money on D&D rate other things consider some things to be more important than balance.


Which I thought was the OP's point, that the desirability of balance would vary from table to table and as such should stay out of the realm of Official 5e products (but in theory could be supported by 3rd parties).

And that some one repeatedly trying to convince people of the forums that WotC should majorly readdress balance would be a fruitless post (or in this case posts).

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, we can't agree on that, and the argument is dumb.

.

Ironically, you saying this actually proves my point. My statement was that there can’t be any one true way to balance things. You disagree. Which means that there is in fact no one true way because myself and others disagree with your opinion.

So no, it’s not a dumb argument.

Look at it like this, the game is not played solely on the mechanics where every table plays the exact same way. Based on that alone, you can’t balance the game objectively. A group that plays almost all combat like an arena may find GWM and SS to be OP. A group that plays little combat but lots of exploration and puzzles may find the rogue to be OP with expertise.

You’re making a critical flaw that always comes up on forums. The assumption that the game IS the mechanics, and ONLY the mechanics. When you have subjective play, you will have subjective ideas of balance.

To address your car anaology, it’s like racing. Some people view balance as every car having all of the same attributes (speed, handling, acceleration). Others view balance as each car ending up with the same # of races won over the course of a circuit, even though each car has different attributes, but each race track is different so each car has a chance to excel. Both are balanced. Neither is wrong. Because like D&D, the event takes place in ever changing environments and not just a set of numbers compared to another set in a white room.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't think the OP's post targets "This isn't working for my table, but this does" posts at all.

Neither was I.

4E's example is a lesson that a good number people who like to spend money on D&D rate other things consider some things to be more important than balance.

Which I just said.

Which I thought was the OP's point, that the desirability of balance would vary from table to table and as such should stay out of the realm of Official 5e products (but in theory could be supported by 3rd parties).

Oh so the OP has an opinion that balance is not valuable so the OP is really just a post about how they don't think WOTC should bother with balancing because the OP personally does not care for it?

Again, the desire for balance has little bearing on the necessity for balance. Which is why, obviously, D&D has trended towards being a more balanced game over the years. Unbalanced games can be heaps of fun...in the short term, but these games do not have staying power, they lack replayability, they constantly run into the same problems, and eventually people get tired of that.

Even if 3 people disagree about which point the game should balance around, all 3 of them agree that the game needs balance. The truth of the matter is likely somewhere between their points. There are class-to-class balance issues. There are encounter-based balance issues. There are campaign-based balance issues.

I'll go back to cars for a moment. I just dropped $900 on my car to get it fixed. Why? Because even though I was capable of living with its problems for a while, when it got right down to it, it needed fixing. My ability to be O.K. with its problems didn't negate the fact that it had problems, and a properly tuned engine runs longer, better and is generally a more enjoyable drive than one that isn't.

The same is true for games. People may have a strong ability to tolerate the broken, the unbalanced, and even some to like those things; that doesn't change the fact that those things are still problems.

And that some one repeatedly trying to convince people of the forums that WotC should majorly readdress balance would be a fruitless post (or in this case posts).

So he's an old man shaking his fist at the clouds?

 

[Sunseeker]

Ironically, you saying this actually proves my point. My statement was that there can’t be any one true way to balance things. You disagree. Which means that there is in fact no one true way because myself and others disagree with your opinion.

So no, it’s not a dumb argument.

No, you just prended I said something I didn't. Your disagreement with my post is irrelevant. Balance is possible from a mathematical standpoint. The fact that some people don't like what that outcome may look like is irrelevant to the fact that balance is indeed possible.

Look at it like this, the game is not played solely on the mechanics where every table plays the exact same way. Based on that alone, you can’t balance the game objectively. A group that plays almost all combat like an arena may find GWM and SS to be OP. A group that plays little combat but lots of exploration and puzzles may find the rogue to be OP with expertise.

Please tell me you did not just seriously argue that "Some people ignore the rules and play the game differently, so that makes balance impossible."

Some people also ignore the law. That doesn't mean the law isn't necessary.

Jesus this just gets dumber with every post.

You’re making a critical flaw that always comes up on forums. The assumption that the game IS the mechanics, and ONLY the mechanics. When you have subjective play, you will have subjective ideas of balance.

Yes, "the game". No, you can't account for what people do at home. Anyone who thinks "the game" can balance for that is insane, or wants some kind of TTRPG Police State. I never argued that you can balance everyone's table.

I argued you can balance the set of rules known as "the game" that they are all playing. The discussion is a lot more productive when people get other people's arguments straight.

"The Game" IS the mechanics. What people add to the top of that is completely beyond the control of The Game. But The Game can still at least start with a balanced base before rogue individuals add their toppings.

To address your car anaology, it’s like racing. Some people view balance as every car having all of the same attributes (speed, handling, acceleration). Others view balance as each car ending up with the same # of races won over the course of a circuit, even though each car has different attributes, but each race track is different so each car has a chance to excel. Both are balanced. Neither is wrong. Because like D&D, the event takes place in ever changing environments and not just a set of numbers compared to another set in a white room.

Only street racers make this comparison, and you'll notice that among the various types of racing that are considered sports, that is: objective balanced games that can be judged and played in fairly, street racing is not one of them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ok, I didn’t even finish reading your post. You need to seriously check yourself. First, I didn’t pretend anything. I directly pointed out how you disagreed with what I said. When I said that true balance is unattainable because it means different things to different people who play the game differently, and you say you disagree, then me saying “you disagree with this” isn’t pretending you did something you didn’t do. It’s literally pointing out what you just did.

Secondly, don’t accuse others of making strawman and then immediately make one yourself. I never said people ignore the rules. I said people place emphasis on the various pillars differently. Which they do. Which makes a WORLD of difference on how the game balances out as I went into detail to explain why. So unless you can point me to the rule that states everyone MUST spend X% of their game time in combat, and X% on interaction, and X% on exploration, and every combat must be equally distributed between range and melee with the exact same number of rounds against the same number and type of opponents, then no. People are not ignoring rules to place emphasis on one pillar over another.

Then I stopped reading your post because you seem equal parts intellectually dishonest and unnessarily hostile by coming right of the gate with your first post calling my OP dumb.

So good day to you.

 

[Oofta]

Can we agree on this?

But ... but ... if we agree on something how will we ever get to 500 posts trading variations of the same posts?

 

[5ekyu]

No, we can't agree on that, and the argument is dumb.

The fact that everyone has opinions on things is irrelevant to the question of "Can we balance this?" To which the answer is almost always "Yes." The fact that some people don't want to do what is necessary to achieve balance, don't believe balance is actually possible, don't believe balance itsself is necessary or just plum don't care remains completely 100% irrelevant.

This is like suggesting we can't have have a good car because people disagree on what makes a good vehicle. Obviously we've been able to build good cars. There are also ways to build objectively bad cars.

While yes, when someone posts a thread that says "Here's how to FIX D&D!" we should always assume what they are saying is "Here's how I THINK we should FIX D&D!" To this I have no disagreement. But to suggest that these suggestions are nothing more than opinion and therefore all equally valid and thus all equally worthless is absurdity. This is the same kind of un-logic that tricks people into the trap of thinking those who espouse genocide have equal opinions to those who want to treat all humans fairly.

There are objective non-opinion ways to improve D&D. To balance it in the encounter, to balance it over the campaign, to balance classes against classes, and to balance different possible options against each other. Sometimes people's suggestions contain these elements. Sometimes they don't.

4E for example dramatically balanced the game from 3.5 Both classes against classes, in the encounter and over the campaign. It was objectively a more balanced D&D. Problem? People didn't like it. I'm not saying we have to pull a 4E to balance D&D. But I am saying it is possible as it has been done.

"But to suggest that these suggestions are nothing more than opinion and therefore all equally valid and thus all equally worthless is absurdity. "

I have not seen anyone make such a claim. its at the heart of your rather odd exclamation but its not an issue in doubt, as far as i know.

this gets kind of around to the notion and misconception about what right to an opinion means... - if i believe everyone has the right to an opinion (which i do) that in no way implies every opinion is equally valid.

The closest to something like what you claim was this part of the OP
"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."

But it does not get to the "all equally valid."

Now, as for my vieww on the rest of your points about how achievable balanced D&D is...

let me counter with the idea that "balanced D&D" or "can we balance this" or "can we fix D&D" etc... each of those is a statement of two things... "balance" (or "fix") and "D&D".

it is possible to start with D&D, do a bunch of changes for the sake of "balance" and wind up with something balanced **that is no longer D&D.** Even if we leave that label on the cover, if its lost enough of the elements that "make it D&D" we did not actually "fix D&D" we just created something else that seems more "fixed" (by whatever definitions that was given.)

To me, the following are some key components of D&D as a tabletop RPG... these cannot be lost in order for it to still be D&D... these are not necessarily limited to D&D or sufficient to set D&D apart...

1 - The GM (may be a multi-person position) chooses (even if he chooses from a pre-built module) the "environment" and the challenges - and so no two sessions or campaigns or groups may see the exact same challenges and settings from day to day or over their course of play. This is not a video game with pre-determined boss fights with pre-determined timing triggers but a game where "wherw we are and what we are doing and what this is about" are all creative choices made by those there.

2 - Players can chose their own characters and make meaningful decisions as to what they are, who they are and what they can do. As such, no two games or groups or tables will have, are guaranteed to have or should be expected to have the exact same capabilities as any other (with a small nod to the smaller subset of formalized league competitive play where everyone agrees to such limitations.) this includes *both* straight up mechanical capabilities and the "role playing" elements of "would my character do that?"


So this means from one table to the next, from one campaign to the next, from one group to the next the challenges presented (the needs), the actual "tools we have at our disposal" and the willingness of the "characters" in their "roles" to use those tools in various ways *all vary.*

That means it is not possible to "balance D&D" **objectively** because there is no **objective** measuring stick unless you remove that very inherent variability that is the core of D&D as a tabletop RPG.

A very simple example is: Darkvision.

How many encounters which matter in my campaign or Joe's campaign or ted's campaign will take place in circumstances where having darkvision matters a lot, matters a little or matter snot at all?

Without knowing that, without locking that down (by throwing out that whole Gm decides this and players decide that and those choices matter) it is impossible to balance out whether a racial package with darkvision is "balanced" with another racial package without darkvision that have other differences "that are supposed to balance them out."

Do you balance that by throwing out darkvision, giving everyone darkvision or making it an irrelevant decision? Do you do it by dictating how many dim light, bright light and darkness encounters a Gm is allowed to create for his world (and that the player scan choose to engage in?)

So, what i submit for consideration is where i have come to after seeing game upon game go thru the "if we can just define it down a little bit more we can get perfect math"...

The smaller the granularity, the more precisely down to the littlest bit you focus, the less you see the whole game and the almost perfect forest for the trees gets into play.

A game does not need or benefit from more and more devotion to "balance" especially "balance" in a form of "at the mechanics level" with a sort of "generic" approach. "balance on paper" has little value compared to "balance in play".

A game benefits from being "balanceable" not "balanced."
A game benefits from being a case where the Gm has at his disposal and players have at their disposal choices that can show in play "this character" and "that character" each are fun to play, useful to play and worthwhile - with individuality.

its the difference between a system where in a variety of campaigns a variety of GMs can create a state of equilibrium between his player's characters based off what they all want and a more static "video game" pre-fab where a DPS challenge event is a known defined measurable and solvable thing.

5E IMO is not a perfect game by any means but it meets the "balancable" across variety condition as i see it.