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

[GreyICE]

For example, if a DM designs a closed dungeon adventure with a lair guarded exclusively by golems, the casters are likely to be rather "unbalanced" due to lack of opportunity. If he designs a political adventure where combat is discouraged, the fighter is likely to feel rather "unbalanced", but the bard might suddenly feel overpowered. These kinds of things outweigh the basic action resolution mechanics.

Never understood that. It's hard to see how a DM runs a game without exercising all kinds of discretion, whether he wants to or not.

Oh man, I remember when a DM tried to nerf my Druid with Golems. Did you know Druids can spontaneously cast Summon Nature's Ally? I bet you did!

Do you know how summons fare versus Golems? Actually, all said and done, Wildshape+Companion+Summons are just fine at taking down golems, and faster than our barbarian did too.

Now the Warlock felt pretty boned, but hey, his fault for picking a gimp caster.

 

[The Choice]

Oh man, I remember when a DM tried to nerf my Druid with Golems. Did you know Druids can spontaneously cast Summon Nature's Ally? I bet you did!

Do you know how summons fare versus Golems? Actually, all said and done, Wildshape+Companion+Summons are just fine at taking down golems, and faster than our barbarian did too.

Now the Warlock felt pretty boned, but hey, his fault for picking a gimp caster.

That's not completely fair, though. See, by core (and aside from the druid, who's a totally different shade of broken), the wizard and cleric ARE pretty boned by an encounter with a golem. Few problems with that "balance" though: 1) so's the fighter if the DM hasn't given him an adamantite weapon; 2) the wizard/cleric could pick spells from dozens of non-core sources that bypass the golem's immunities (he's immune to any spell that can be affected by SR, find a spell that bypasses SR and you're golden); 3) creating such a series of encounters is a gigantic a douche-master move by the DM, because, to artificially and temporarely prop up the fighter, the rogue (unless he carries an adamantite dagger/shortsword) can't even hope to scratch a golem's paintjob (nevermind using its trademark ability, sneak attack)...

So, unless you're a complete jerk, and enjoy sticking such combats every four encounters or so, you could kinda sorta fix the combat balance issue of fighter if you squint real hard and look at it just the right way. And that doesn't even adress the non-combat balance issue. Seriously? Two miserable skill points per level? No out of combat abilities (outside of feats, which are less versatile and powerful than most 1st-2nd level spells)?

 

[GreyICE]

That's not completely fair, though. See, by core (and aside from the druid, who's a totally different shade of broken), the wizard and cleric ARE pretty boned by an encounter with a golem. Few problems with that "balance" though: 1) so's the fighter if the DM hasn't given him an adamantite weapon; 2) the wizard/cleric could pick spells from dozens of non-core sources that bypass the golem's immunities (he's immune to any spell that can be affected by SR, find a spell that bypasses SR and you're golden); 3) creating such a series of encounters is a gigantic a douche-master move by the DM, because, to artificially and temporarely prop up the fighter, the rogue (unless he carries an adamantite dagger/shortsword) can't even hope to scratch a golem's paintjob (nevermind using its trademark ability, sneak attack)...

So, unless you're a complete jerk, and enjoy sticking such combats every four encounters or so, you could kinda sorta fix the combat balance issue of fighter if you squint real hard and look at it just the right way. And that doesn't even adress the non-combat balance issue. Seriously? Two miserable skill points per level? No out of combat abilities (outside of feats, which are less versatile and powerful than most 1st-2nd level spells)?

Well I challenge your assumption that Wizards are screwed straight out of core. A Wizard could use Arcane Eye or Scrying to identify the contents of the Dungeon, and Rope Trick to give himself somewhere to rest for 8 hours. Then he could memorize piles of "Summon Monster N" spells and pull pretty much the same trick as the Druid, minus the animal companions. Alternatively, nothing the golem does lets him bypass walls of iron or force, and the Wizard could easily use the walls to escape, rest, and memorize the required spells.

Clerics... also have access to the entire summon monster line. Less walls and stuff, but generally they have similar abilities. In addition, they can fall back on a 3/4 BAB, Righteous Might, and overall (depending on the domain) some pretty broken effects.

I mean yes, overall the Druid is king of Core 3.5, to levels that are utterly obscene, but you have to give the rest of the big 3 their due. Actually challenging a Wizard who understands their spell list is nearly impossible. Druids just have more room to improvise when things get screwed up.

 

[The Choice]

Well I challenge your assumption that Wizards are screwed straight out of core. A Wizard could use Arcane Eye or Scrying to identify the contents of the Dungeon, and Rope Trick to give himself somewhere to rest for 8 hours. Then he could memorize piles of "Summon Monster N" spells and pull pretty much the same trick as the Druid, minus the animal companions. Alternatively, nothing the golem does lets him bypass walls of iron or force, and the Wizard could easily use the walls to escape, rest, and memorize the required spells.

Clerics... also have access to the entire summon monster line. Less walls and stuff, but generally they have similar abilities. In addition, they can fall back on a 3/4 BAB, Righteous Might, and overall (depending on the domain) some pretty broken effects.

I mean yes, overall the Druid is king of Core 3.5, to levels that are utterly obscene, but you have to give the rest of the big 3 their due. Actually challenging a Wizard who understands their spell list is nearly impossible. Druids just have more room to improvise when things get screwed up.

I'll simply counter that by saying I was playing wizards and clerics the way they are meant to be played: you know, lightning bolts, fireballs and cure [X] wounds...

 

[GreyICE]

I'll simply counter that by saying I was playing wizards and clerics the way they are meant to be played: you know, lightning bolts, fireballs and cure [X] wounds...

Oh gods. I remember WotC once published an article where they discussed mechanics and power curves, and mentioned that Magic Missile was SLIGHTLY over the curve for 1st level spells, and Fireball was on the bleeding edge of the power curve for 3rd level spells.

Even back then I was like "What? Not Color Spray and Sleep, which can win one combat per cast at level 1?"

To be honest, I can't imagine sticking Magic Missile in a spell slot in 3E (well maybe in the EXTREME high levels, to play lawlblaster in meaningless combats or something). Of course that probs wouldn't work because Evocation is the worst wizard school and specialist wizards rock...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, blasty mages sucked for two reasons - massively increased HP for monsters, and WAY too many immunities. The damage for most spells wasn't increased from 2e to 3e, but the monsters got two to three times more HP, and gained all sorts of either resistances or flat out immunities. Never mind SR as well. So, yeah, the blasty mage got absolutely hosed.

I never understood why anyone would play a Warmage.

To not overshine the Fighters and still be a spellcaster?

 

[Victim]

Well, blasty mages sucked for two reasons - massively increased HP for monsters, and WAY too many immunities. The damage for most spells wasn't increased from 2e to 3e, but the monsters got two to three times more HP, and gained all sorts of either resistances or flat out immunities. Never mind SR as well. So, yeah, the blasty mage got absolutely hosed.

I never understood why anyone would play a Warmage.

Picking Warmage is a very clear statement that you are there to blow things up, not solve problems, or cast helpful buffs. I mean, it's not a very good class, but it provides a lot of blasting and some battlefield control in a pretty simple package. And there are a lot of classes that aren't especially great; while single out the Warmage?

On a practical note, as long as someone has decent monster knowledge, the Warmage spontaneous casting of basically every blasty spell makes it pretty easy for them to bypass resistances against most enemies.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's not completely fair, though. See, by core (and aside from the druid, who's a totally different shade of broken), the wizard and cleric ARE pretty boned by an encounter with a golem. Few problems with that "balance" though: 1) so's the fighter if the DM hasn't given him an adamantite weapon; 2) the wizard/cleric could pick spells from dozens of non-core sources that bypass the golem's immunities (he's immune to any spell that can be affected by SR, find a spell that bypasses SR and you're golden);

I refer you to my post here. A collection of five core spells, levels 1-4 that entirely bypass SR and that attack different defences (other than the Grease/Web overlap) while completely hosing the monster that falls victim to them. I further refer you to victim's post here.

The biggest thing throwing golems and high SR creatures at wizards does is forces them to pick good spells. Spells that the DM is going to regret even when applied to non-golems.

3) creating such a series of encounters is a gigantic a douche-master move by the DM, because, to artificially and temporarely prop up the fighter, the rogue (unless he carries an adamantite dagger/shortsword) can't even hope to scratch a golem's paintjob (nevermind using its trademark ability, sneak attack)...

Indeed. The golems might have been put in to hose the wizard - but not only do they fail miserably at that (having truly terrible saving throws and being easy to render near-harmless with second level spells), they do succeed in hosing the rogue.

I'll simply counter that by saying I was playing wizards and clerics the way they are meant to be played: you know, lightning bolts, fireballs and cure [X] wounds...

If they meant us to play that way they shouldn't have made other ways so incredibly much better. To do so is a bad failure of game design. And I'm not sure how you're meant to play a druid other than as an ursine swarm.

 

[Magil]

I'll simply counter that by saying I was playing wizards and clerics the way they are meant to be played: you know, lightning bolts, fireballs and cure [X] wounds...

To not overshine the Fighters and still be a spellcaster?

If all those other spells weren't meant to be used, why do they exist? I think saying "well the wizard wasn't meant to be played that way" is rather dubious with the amount of core spells (and the assertion that such spells are non-core is frankly silly, they're right there in the PHB/srd) printed that support that playstyle.

It's not like the only spells in core are blasty and everyone just picks stuff from splats. Wizards were meant to be flexible in 3rd, and an Evoker was just one type of wizard.

 

[Bluenose]

If all those other spells weren't meant to be used, why do they exist? I think saying "well the wizard wasn't meant to be played that way" is rather dubious with the amount of core spells (and the assertion that such spells are non-core is frankly silly, they're right there in the PHB/srd) printed that support that playstyle.

It's not like the only spells in core are blasty and everyone just picks stuff from splats. Wizards were meant to be flexible in 3rd, and an Evoker was just one type of wizard.

A high percentage of those spells were ported over from AD&D without any consideration of the other changes made to the system (the amount of hit points and the way saving throws worked). Evocation was useful in AD&D because hit points were lower and because it mostly had an effect even when opponents saved against the spell; Save-or-Die/Suck got progressively less useful at higher levels because high HD/level enemies were more and more likely to make the save and there wasn't an effect if they did. 3e more or less reversed the traditional saving throw paradigm and inflated hit points. It's hardly a surprise that Evocation magic unchanged from AD&D was significantly less desirable.