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

[Jester David]

A key thing to keep in mind is balance and equality are two different things.

There is nothing in balanced that requires two options to have the same effects.

Specifically "same in game impact" and "no mechanical differences" are very very different things. But it is common for them to be mashed together by one side or the other to support a balance position.

The key to game impact is how the overall package applies and is relevant to outcomes.

Thats where things like SS/GMW do more dpr under (assumptions) than Sword and shield or TWF fail to be convincing (to some) when other difference can be highlited - concealability, defense, thrown, etc. They tend to short shrift the opportunity costs.

It also tends to fail for some because higher dpr does not necessarily shift the bar for successful outcomes as much as the math is being portrayed.

In my own experience, its like area under bell curve.

At the lowest levels, it help you towards victory very litte - your mediocre dmg is not going to matter. By midle norm to above average outputs it helps a lot. But that last bit from above average to top, doesnt shift the success bar as much as it serms because the opportunity costs add up plus having some much channeled down one path to victory.

Like tic tac toe, if only one type of challenge is presented, its likely solvable. But rpgs are more complex than that.

There's two things at play.
Yes, there is the desire for mechanical choices to have mechanical effects so your choices alter your character. But also at work is the desire for building and optimisation, which is related but different. The group of fans who want to "win" the game by making the toughest character. The fans who sit around and build characters for fun. Many are already pretty vocal about 5e being low in options for that reason. (Ironically, some of which on this forum like to complain about the lack of complexity but also like to complain about the lack of balance, completely missing that the two are causally related.)

 

[Satyrn]

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

I have an idea.

After I post this suggestion of how we can reach 500 posts, you can follow up by ignoring that suggestions and continue bemoaning the impossibility of reaching 500.

That should kickstart the normal cycle.

 

[Oofta]

I have an idea.

After I post this suggestion of how we can reach 500 posts, you can follow up by ignoring that suggestions and continue bemoaning the impossibility of reaching 500.

That should kickstart the normal cycle.

Wow. Out of all the suggestions ever posted on this message board, THAT IS THE WORST IDEA EVAR!!! See how I capitalized and un-ironically misspelled ever? Your turn!

 

[Lanefan]

The fact that everyone has opinions on things is irrelevant to the question of "Can we balance this?"

Which isn't even the most important question, nor the first that needs be asked.

The first and most important question has to be one or both of "Does <insert element here> need balancing?" and "Should we try to balance it?". Oh, and before that we all need to agree on a definition of balance, as it takes many forms...

The next question, assuming 'yes' to the above, is then "Can we balance this?".

The next and equally important question, again assuming 'yes' to the last one, is then "Is balancing this a goal worthy of the effort involved?"

To which the answer is almost always "Yes."

True enough - given time anything can be done.

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.

Er...no.

It is always perfectly valid (and often reasonable, and sometimes essential!) to answer 'no' to any of the questions I list above. The people giving such answers are no less relevant than those who answer 'yes'.

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.

Going back to agreeing on a definition of balance, you've nailed the problem squarely. Each of those is a different version or definition of balance. Which do you want to go for?

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.

So the trick, you say, is to do this and yet produce a game that doesn't end up fairly similar to 4e.

Have fun with that.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

If there’s no mechanical difference, that means you can’t optimize. Imbalance drives optimization and power gaming. A game where you can’t optimize ...

...would be a pleasant improvement.

But there can still be mechanical differences. The trick is to have WAY FEWER mechanics, with reasonably clear benefits and drawbacks to each.

 

[Arilyn]

The title of this thread made me laugh a little. Final word on balance....D&D? Not going to happen.

 

[5ekyu]

There's two things at play.
Yes, there is the desire for mechanical choices to have mechanical effects so your choices alter your character. But also at work is the desire for building and optimisation, which is related but different. The group of fans who want to "win" the game by making the toughest character. The fans who sit around and build characters for fun. Many are already pretty vocal about 5e being low in options for that reason. (Ironically, some of which on this forum like to complain about the lack of complexity but also like to complain about the lack of balance, completely missing that the two are causally related.)

Not sure how that relates to my post, but, as a player who sits around creating characters for fun (its my sudoku frankly) i have to wonder...

If someone is focused on generating the toughest character or the best character or winning in chargen then it seems a couple things are true...

1 They have defined for themselves what best, toughest or winning is (maybe for some its dpr for instance)

2 They have devised their own "test" situations and criteria (is range open? Are we assuming undead or giants or werewolfs?)

Given those two, why would it be disturbing to them to the degree of a campaign to get the system changed if they succeeded in solving the puzzle they created for them to solve? As in why would they then be all GWM has to change if they got what they were seeking and solved their puzzle setup for "most cookies"?

Would seem to me if you enjoy solving puzzles you conjure, why would succeeding rally you to call for action?

 

[Zardnaar]

Do we have a final final word, a finalist, or are things finally over?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Not arguing with the moderation itself. Wasn't one of the people who received private moderation.
But could the warning be said in a way that doesn't patronising us becoming emotionally invested in the game?
I kinda feel insulted.

Yeah, we are just talking about a game where we pretend to be elves. And football is just a game where you kick around a ball of animal hide back and forth across a lawn. But people will beat the ever living crud out of each other over that game.
All hobbies and occupations can be made to sound silly if you reduce them to their simplest description. But pointing that out just makes people feel ashamed or gets them defensive.

Wait just a damn minute!!

Is that ball really made of animal skin? I am so offended right now!! Shocked and offended, sir!

 

[Lanefan]

Do we have a final final word, a finalist, or are things finally over?

No; once again it's ending up tied after extra time, and going to a replay.