D&D 5E How much should 5e aim at balance?

[Underman]

And there being such an obvious loophole to me feels like I'm trying to make up for the game designer having ed up in an extremely obvious way.

From a social contract POV, that's like your wife asking you to take out the garbage, so you put the garbage outside the front door, and she says "why didn't you put it in the garbage can?!" and you say "being such an obvious loophole to me feels like I'm trying to make up for you having ed up in an extremely obvious way". Which is not to say that a wife's request is the same as a game designer's rule, but that justifying your own optimized lifestyle supersedes an implied social contract.

As a Wis 18 character worried for his life, I'd have in character gone for the Triton.

I'll bite. Firstly, the wizard has to have that high wisdom. Probably some lucky insight to even consider the Triton of all things as a candidate for summoning. Then the intelligence and monster lore to know that Tritons can summon Thoqquas. Even so, the wizard may assume that the summoning aura interferes with other summoning magic. And while you're at it, roleplay your 18 Wis 18 Int wizard expressing his doubts about risking his life on adventures and isn't it worth considering retiring from adventuring to do something with a higher profit to risk ratio because it's not as if he's a puppet having his strings jerked around forcing him to go on crazy adventures.

Or perhaps it's like those amazing movies where you could have poked holes in the plot like "Why didn't they use that thingamagic in that scene?" but you don't because you don't want to sound like a party-pooper amongst your friends, and the movie still deserves an 8.9 out of 10 on imdb.

Not that it matters because the rule says summoned monsters cannot summon. One could arrive at the same conclusion according to the social contract and putting less emphasis on the metagame priorities. That's a player's prerogative. I just don't want that kind of prerogative resulting in my wife resorting to anal-retentive conversations with me because she no longer trusts me to do the right thing.

 

[Herschel]

I can't think of a lot of heroic fiction where the heroes worry about whether using their daily powers on an enemy because it might or might not be "worth it". Resource management is not a factor in most fiction, and if it is, the resource is something tangible like fatigue or health, or even something intangible like faith or luck, but never the "mojo" that is implied by the metagame nature of the AEDU restrictions.

Resource management is completely player-side bookkeeping and has nothing to do with "the character". In fiction, resource management is handled by the author. It's most definitely a factor and denying its existing is willful blindness .

In actual D&D fiction even "daily" and "encounter"-type martial abilities have always been part of it. Take R.A. Salvatore from "Homeland". Zaknafein and Drizzt are working through the "unbeatable scenario" where basically it's a set up move taking specific circumstances to happen, in this case twin sword combinations starting high and wide and working down. That's a special move that doesn't happen at-will.

Up to that point, Zak's come up with a way to parry that type of attack so it ends in a stalemate.

Drizzt later comes up with a move that crosses the swords down to block and then kicks over the swords, knocking the opponent back. It's a special move that doesn't come up at-will but it does come up from time-to-time.

 

[Emerikol]

Resource management is completely player-side bookkeeping and has nothing to do with "the character". In fiction, resource management is handled by the author. It's most definitely a factor and denying its existing is willful blindness .

In actual D&D fiction even "daily" and "encounter"-type martial abilities have always been part of it. Take R.A. Salvatore from "Homeland". Zaknafein and Drizzt are working through the "unbeatable scenario" where basically it's a set up move taking specific circumstances to happen, in this case twin sword combinations starting high and wide and working down. That's a special move that doesn't happen at-will.

Up to that point, Zak's come up with a way to parry that type of attack so it ends in a stalemate.

Drizzt later comes up with a move that crosses the swords down to block and then kicks over the swords, knocking the opponent back. It's a special move that doesn't come up at-will but it does come up from time-to-time.

Isn't that what he said? We don't like things that separate the player and the character. What the player chooses from are the same options the character would be choosing from. When those two separate you get metagame dissonance which ruins a lot of people's fun. Even if not yours.

 

[innerdude]

The weird thing here is that pmerton's descriptions of his 4e campaign are almost entirely in line with my play experiences and the way I DM. And I more or less learned to DM with 4e.

Which is why I'd enjoy playing in pemerton's game, because it would give me a chance to explore a different way of playing D&D that's wholly foreign to me. I'm simply not "wired" for metagame mechanics and narrativism as a primary playstyle, but if played with the right "guiding hand" behind the GM screen, it's probably a fun time.

I just know that A., I personally will never run a game in that style because it's just not in my DNA, and B., based on my experience with 4e, it seems to be pretty damn hard for other DMs to make it work the way pemerton does, and not the way Libriaman described in his post.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You are paraphrasing an actual, real-world, meth-head, serial-killer-worshipping, hypocritical sociopath to bolster an argument against equality, transparency and fairness.

Third, whatever you may think of Ayn Rand (and on this as on just about everything else I disagree with her), I can track the idea back through Gilbert and Sullivan in the 19th century.

Amusingly, I didn't even say what side of the whole, old argument she took...

Hmmmm.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Resource management is completely player-side bookkeeping and has nothing to do with "the character". In fiction, resource management is handled by the author. It's most definitely a factor and denying its existing is willful blindness .

...

Drizzt later comes up with a move that crosses the swords down to block and then kicks over the swords, knocking the opponent back. It's a special move that doesn't come up at-will but it does come up from time-to-time.

I think the issue isn't that resource management is a thing, it's that arbitrary resource management is a thing in AEDU. If the fighter using his encounter power or daily power is simply a luck thing in the setting, like the circumstances only work out 1/encounter or 1/daily about... then how about just making it a dice thing? That's how circumstance/luck is handled in the rest of D&Dland. Like, the fighter has to roll high on a particular dice, or crit twice, or roll max damage, or whatever, to use a given power.

Personally, I prefer the arbitrary 4E method, but I come at it from a narrative point of view; I think it's cool to give the player, regardless of character class, certain narrative control over combat.

 

[Herschel]

Isn't that what he said? We don't like things that separate the player and the character. What the player chooses from are the same options the character would be choosing from. When those two separate you get metagame dissonance which ruins a lot of people's fun. Even if not yours.

EVERYTHING separates the player from the character. Choosing to believe some things do and some things don't is self-delusuion. Characters don't know how many HP they have left or their allies have left. They don't know their attack bonus, spell resistances, how many XP that sword was worth (or what an XP even IS) or what the plusses on it are, what certain spells are, how a Wild Surge is numerically triggered, what he has to roll to get a fireball out of a Wand of Wonder, or any thing else.

 

[Tovec]

Wow this thread has legs.

To me the main advantage of better balance is that IMO it helps average referees run a better game. Refereeing involves keeping a lot of balls in the air, it's hard to do for average referees, who I think are probably in the majority, and anything that adds unnecesssarily to the workload is a pain.

I think what some of us object to is that we don't think DMs are or should be referees. We don't need the game to tell us how to run our game, we need the game to LET us run our game. When balance is enforced over our being able to run what we want then it becomes a problem. It is also a problem when balance, not fun or creativity or anything else, is the primary driving purpose.

Bad balance adds more work for the referee both in prep time -

• scrutinising rules for balance
• finding where the flavour text and mechanics don't support each other (something I hate, hate hate),
• banning or houseruling broken material
• advising players at character creation - it's never fun telling people that their character concept is going to suck in a particular game system

I can't speak for everyone but I know I don't want, look for or prefer broken options. That has never been my preference and I don't object to broken things being fixed. I object to the non-broken things being fixed, or rather being balanced and replaced with completely new options when the old ones worked fine. That does have to do with disagreeing on what is broken though.

and at run time -

• balancing spotlight time between PCs with what can be wildly different power levels (a few people prefer to avoid the spotlight, but most like it some of the time)
• watching out for games material that unexpectedly turns out to be broken,
• encounters and situations that are unexpectedly far too dangerous or completely short-circuited and need to be adjusted on the fly

I've always tried to give all players (and characters) equal opportunity to shine. It is up to them if they do. I've never needed the rules to impose how to do this. If I put in a trapped door it is pretty obvious who it is meant for. But only 4e made it that all classes were equal (or about there) in combat which necessitated coming up with equal uses for them. I never designed a situation in 3e that would only be resolved by the rogue (as an example). But I gave the rogue options to avoid the fight using stealth, whereas the fighter would have probably fought their way through a situation. The wizard could have cast a spell to incapacitate the enemy too and the cleric may have blasted them with energy or brilliant light to blind them. But the rogue could always just sneak around, or ambush or attack and I don't feel like I get these same options in 4e - unless I'm doing some sort of skill challenge.

I prefer running games as close to as written as possible as this helps players know what to expect from the game - the more houserules the further away from "core" the game drifts, and the harder it is to create accurate expectations for the game.

I'm right there with you. But I also prefer having tools or pieces I can slot in or out that people will accept as part of the core mechanic of the game. A toolbox approach always works best in our games. For example, there is a rule in 3e that rolling 20 3 times means that creature dies (some versions it is a save, others it is more 20s, etc.). I've always hated that rule but nevertheless it is there. I've always hated it but it is a very simple aspect to remove. Now, trying to impose that kind of option from scratch in a handful of games is nearly impossible to do without having people call foul. It is worse when those new options don't slot into some perceived measure of balance that is supposed to be the fundamental aspect of the game.
That's why I want a set of options that come with the game that I can introduce or remove as needed. Options that I can easily disallow or allow as needed so that my group will know what "houserules" we are using with little or no real explanation involved.

4e was sufficiently well balanced for my purposes to eliminate the vast majority of the makework listed above, reducing my prep time and allowing me to use it for fun stuff like creating NPCs and plots.

Good but it isn't the same for all of us. Balance itself also has very little to do with this. If any system is well designed it can reduce prep time and allow you to use it for fun stuff like creating NPCs and plots. 4e isn't unique here. In that regard, I think it is "best" only by virtue of being newest. Balance has very little to do with prep time. Balance by itself has very little to do with fun either. You need a lot of other aspects to do that.

 

[Emerikol]

EVERYTHING separates the player from the character. Choosing to believe some things do and some things don't is self-delusuion. Characters don't know how many HP they have left or their allies have left. They don't know their attack bonus, spell resistances, how many XP that sword was worth (or what an XP even IS) or what the plusses on it are, what certain spells are, how a Wild Surge is numerically triggered, what he has to roll to get a fireball out of a Wand of Wonder, or any thing else.

This attitude is especially annoying. This is perhaps one of the major reasons 4e lost so many players. Not the only one but a major one. Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean it does not exist.

While the character does not know his hit points he knows his general state of being and that is expressed to the player in hit points. I agree though that monsters and other PCs should not reveal their hit points. In my game they don't.

An attack bonus is merely a measure of skill.
A plus on a sword is a better sword.
Spell resistance is uh spell resistance.
Wizards have studied magic and know most of what happens with their spells.
While XP is not known, the idea that someone progresses in skill is not.

A martial daily is entirely in the mind of the player. There is no reason whatsoever for a daily especially when you have other dailies still available. The slot concept makes no sense for a martial character.

I get that you don't get it. It's probably a reason why you can play 4e without being bothered by it. But instead of ridiculing those of us who do get it maybe you could try to understand the distinction. Thousands of players who independently have issues with this are all insane or illogical. I can just about guarantee 5e will fall flat if it ignores these issues.

 

[Herschel]

This attitude is especially annoying. This is perhaps one of the major reasons 4e lost so many players. Not the only one but a major one. Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean it does not exist.

While the character does not know his hit points he knows his general state of being and that is expressed to the player in hit points. I agree though that monsters and other PCs should not reveal their hit points. In my game they don't.

An attack bonus is merely a measure of skill.
A plus on a sword is a better sword.
Spell resistance is uh spell resistance.
Wizards have studied magic and know most of what happens with their spells.
While XP is not known, the idea that someone progresses in skill is not.

A martial daily is entirely in the mind of the player. There is no reason whatsoever for a daily especially when you have other dailies still available. The slot concept makes no sense for a martial character.

I get that you don't get it. It's probably a reason why you can play 4e without being bothered by it. But instead of ridiculing those of us who do get it maybe you could try to understand the distinction. Thousands of players who independently have issues with this are all insane or illogical. I can just about guarantee 5e will fall flat if it ignores these issues.

What's annoying is people who think there's somehow differences between the martial daily and the rest. Quite simply, there's not. You've told yourself over and over there's a difference until you've come to believe it, but that doesn't change the fact it's a fallacy.

There are oodles and scads of numbers, values and resources. They're the guts of the game. The only way to actually make the game like you say it runs is to take ALL information away from the players, including their character sheets. Then you really don't know exactly how hurt you are, you lose track of which spells you have left, etc. You just tell the DM what you want to do, he rolls behind the screen and tells you what happened.

Any other way is player resource management.

This may have nothing to do with liking (or disliking) whatever game element is the subject du jour, but it's just another form of the "4E is not D&D" meme that needs to die if there's going to be any meaningful unification of players.