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

[hamstertamer]

Mostly the "playstyle" difference is levels. Druids are overpowered from level 1, but they're not truly offensively overpowered until level 9, and it doesn't become game-breakingly absurd until level 13 or so. Wizards start becoming sick monsters of death in there too.

Really, there's this sweet spot from levels 5-8 where classes have a good number of options and the system works pretty well, all things considered.

Like I said having problems with spellcasters is tied to directly to playstyle. If you full rest after ever battle (without consquences), don't concern yourself with spell components, and any other variables, plus live in a static non-reactive world, then spellcasting will work out quite differently.

Typically at my table, full rest only happens once or twice in a game session (4-5 hours). Of course, it really depends on what's going on in the game and that does vary but full rests are usually the time we break for a few minutes or to end the session. I usually give out xp then. This kind of playstyle tends to make warrior and rogue types seem stronger, even past mid-level, so a lot of players pick those or multi-class into them. It's not the only playstyle for sure but it works well with previous editions of D&D including 3rd edition.

 

[Grydan]

You can't achieve that without making the game so boring, nobody would want to play it. The beauty of this game is that the fighter is powerful at lower levels and the MU is powerful at higher levels. Somewhere in the middle, there is balance. But to try to have the fighter and the MU have the same amount of power at each level is a trick that even Gigax didn't achieve. Balance, as I said before, is over-rated. It breaks the game. Its found at the table between DM and players, not in the rule book.

Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.

You look at that fighter/magic-user situation and see beauty, whereas I look at the same situation and see ugliness.

In any campaign where play remains at low levels, the magic-user class is trapped at a lower power for reasons that are utterly arbitrary. There's no intrinsic reason why a 1st level magic-user must be less effective than a 1st level fighter.

In any campaign where play starts at high levels, the fighter gets the short of the stick. The reasons remain every bit as arbitrary.

Those few levels in between are the sweet spot, and show that equality is entirely possible, and can be enjoyable. It's also a demonstration that balance does have mechanical components, or else it would not be notably different at those levels.

 

[shadowmane]

I believe the concept of "Deal breakers" have been discussed on this board. Things that mean the person in question won't touch the product with a barge pole, no matter what else it contains.

This? Deal breaker.

Okay, explain that to someone who's relatively new here. How is that a deal breaker? Because you want a vanilla game where everyone has the same power level, or that you don't want to play a game where the fighter is powerful at low levels and the MU is powerful at higher levels? To me, the vanilla game that you guys are striving for with your "balance" don't exist. It never existed, and should not be strived for. You want "balance", get it at your table. Bothering the rest of us with gasping sobs about "balance" isn't productive. You'll never get that in the rules. And if you do, nobody will buy the rulebook. It would be too vanilla.

 

[GreyICE]

Like I said having problems with spellcasters is tied to directly to playstyle. If you full rest after ever battle (without consquences), don't concern yourself with spell components, and any other variables, plus live in a static non-reactive world, then spellcasting will work out quite differently.

Typically at my table, full rest only happens once or twice in a game session (4-5 hours). Of course, it really depends on what's going on in the game and that does vary but full rests are usually the time we break for a few minutes or to end the session. I usually give out xp then. This kind of playstyle tends to make warrior and rogue types seem stronger, even past mid-level, so a lot of players pick those or multi-class into them. It's not the only playstyle for sure but it works well with previous editions of D&D including 3rd edition.

No, I'm sorry, no. It's not due to prolonged rests. It's due to far more fundamental things than that.

When I played a druid, I used to just shut entire encounters down with Blinding Spittle or Kelpstrands. To the point that random enemies started carrying water jugs JUST to deal with Blinding Spittle. It wasn't even suggested that this was anything other than a metagame decision. Spiritjaws can just shut down a caster encounter right quick. And when you're hitting higher levels you have things like multiple castings of Baleful Polymorph and Mummify, yeah. Not good.

The lower level spells that just end encounters can quickly get out of control.

 

[shadowmane]

Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.

You look at that fighter/magic-user situation and see beauty, whereas I look at the same situation and see ugliness.

In any campaign where play remains at low levels, the magic-user class is trapped at a lower power for reasons that are utterly arbitrary. There's no intrinsic reason why a 1st level magic-user must be less effective than a 1st level fighter.

In any campaign where play starts at high levels, the fighter gets the short of the stick. The reasons remain every bit as arbitrary.

Those few levels in between are the sweet spot, and show that equality is entirely possible, and can be enjoyable. It's also a demonstration that balance does have mechanical components, or else it would not be notably different at those levels.

See the "vanilla" post above. Why would anyone play a figher, if you can play a MU who can deal out death from afar repeatedly at low levels? There's a reason the MU is weak at lower levels. New players have to learn how to manage the spells and what not. If you put too much on them, you make the class unplayable. Sure, I could see giving a few more spells at level 1-3 and 3-6. But aside from that, you really don't need to make any other tweaks. And you can make those tweaks with a house rule instead of insisting on "balance" from the system itself.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The lower level spells that just end encounters can quickly get out of control.

So basically what you're saying is that some (incidentally non-core) spells are overpowered. That doesn't mean that the character casting them is.

 

[GreyICE]

Okay, explain that to someone who's relatively new here. How is that a deal breaker? Because you want a vanilla game where everyone has the same power level, or that you don't want to play a game where the fighter is powerful at low levels and the MU is powerful at higher levels? To me, the vanilla game that you guys are striving for with your "balance" don't exist. It never existed, and should not be strived for. You want "balance", get it at your table. Bothering the rest of us with gasping sobs about "balance" isn't productive. You'll never get that in the rules. And if you do, nobody will buy the rulebook. It would be too vanilla.

The latter. I don't want a game where the fighter has to be playing second fiddle to the wizard at high level, or where the wizard is a useless person at low level. I want King Arthur to be able to stand alongside Merlin and not have everyone ask "why is Merlin letting that chump do anything, he's clearly 10x more powerful."

Also they made those rules. They did sell pretty damn well.

 

[GreyICE]

So basically what you're saying is that some (incidentally non-core) spells are overpowered. That doesn't mean that the character casting them is.

-_-

The Druid is ridiculously overpowered. Ban what spells you like, an 11th level druid will tear through encounters at a pace that an 11th level fighter can only dream of.

Lets not mince words. Reality is not a subjective experience. Druids and fighters, at level 11, do not look like two equal things standing next to each other. It looks like a high level character standing next to a low level character.

I mean I have this issue where I really don't think reality denial helps anything. Edition preference is edition preference. If you like an edition despite its quirks and issues, that's fine. I love 4E, and it's a quirky system with quite a few issues. But ye gods, lets not pretend those issues don't exist! That's just counter-productive and silly when we're discussing how WotC could get it right in the NEXT edition (the perfect time to clean up those issues and flaws).

 

[shadowmane]

The latter. I don't want a game where the fighter has to be playing second fiddle to the wizard at high level, or where the wizard is a useless person at low level. I want King Arthur to be able to stand alongside Merlin and not have everyone ask "why is Merlin letting that chump do anything, he's clearly 10x more powerful."

Also they made those rules. They did sell pretty damn well.

Good. Then go play your vanilla version. But don't go thinking that your vanilla version is how the game has and should be played. This is a fantasy game, not a superheroes game. I submit that anyone who is wanting "balance" really just wants Superman and Batman in a fantasy setting. If you want Middleearth, or Narnia, or even Barsoom, "balance" goes out the window.

 

[timASW]

my former DM tried several fixes before finally just giving up and deciding to ban wizards, clerics, and druids altogether from his 3rd edition campaign.

He was undoubtedly trying to solve a problem that didnt really exist. Which is bound to create all sorts of difficulties for a person who attempts it...