Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at balance?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5984113" data-attributes="member: 17106"><p>Ability scores are one of the most clearly simulationist aspects of the rules; there are charts telling you how much weight your strength lets you carry. They connect your character to the world. They offer beginners a way of seeing things, a simple number that says something that can be easily understood in common language: how strong or smart you are. If anything, 5e is taking the right approach in emphasizing ability scores more.</p><p></p><p>If you're saying that not enough was done to make them all useful, that's true. Dump stats are too prevalent. The 5e six saves policy is a decent step; there's more that could be done there.</p><p></p><p>Well, yes, but if you're talking about viability, and not equivalency, that's very different. For example, the 3.X NPC classes (expert, warrior, commoner, artistocrat, adept) are not even close to being equal to the PC classes, but in most games, they're probably viable. The post I've been quoting talks about every choice been equal, not viable. Big difference</p><p></p><p>Difficult to respond to such an absurd argument. Unequal choices are not inherently "rigged".</p><p></p><p>For example, if power attack is a poor feat choice for my sorcerer because it doesn't help my spells, that doesn't mean that my choice of feats is "rigged". It just means that I should probably choose something different unless I'm building a fighter/mage.</p><p></p><p>Do the rules present halfling and half-orc barbarians as being equal? Or smart wizards and stupid ones? Or rogues and warlocks? I don't see that idea coming from anyone but you.</p><p></p><p> I'm not dismissing it. I'm qualifying what you're presenting as facts regarding game balance and imposing on me (and implicitly anyone else) as being something other than facts. In other words, your post that I know nothing about balance was an inappropriate overreach. I'm calling it what it is.</p><p></p><p>If it existed solely in message board posts, I would. As it is, I know that Gravity exists because I observe it, just like I know that D&D (all editions) is acceptably balanced because I observe it.</p><p></p><p>Because dishwashing is generally less useful in D&D than stealth is.</p><p></p><p>This notion, as fleshed out by [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] above, seems unfaithful to the concept of a roleplaying game. If no choices are better or worse than any others, there's no tactical element, making it not much of a game. If feeble weaklings are as good at hand-to-hand combat as the strong and the tough, it's hard to tell any kind of believable story or imagine that you're playing a character's role. What exactly is the point of such a "balanced" game?</p><p></p><p>If I make two characters, one a simple level 5 NPC dirt farmer, and the other a level 5 evoker, and their mechanical capabilities are functionally equivalent, simply because they are level 5, that's not balance. That's just ridiculous.</p><p></p><p>***</p><p></p><p>So I see two things here. You compare D&D, an open-ended roleplaying game that is noncompetitive, has no definitional goals or outcomes, and no hard rules to chess, a game that is not a roleplaying game, is a simple closed system, and has a codified set of hard rules, and postulate that both should be balanced in the same way.</p><p></p><p>Then you refer to something other than this completely inappropriate example as being "reductionist".</p><p></p><p><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" /> Huh?</p><p></p><p>Balance is important, but there have been some really gross mischaracterizations of what it is here. Seems like the OP was on to something.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 5984113, member: 17106"] Ability scores are one of the most clearly simulationist aspects of the rules; there are charts telling you how much weight your strength lets you carry. They connect your character to the world. They offer beginners a way of seeing things, a simple number that says something that can be easily understood in common language: how strong or smart you are. If anything, 5e is taking the right approach in emphasizing ability scores more. If you're saying that not enough was done to make them all useful, that's true. Dump stats are too prevalent. The 5e six saves policy is a decent step; there's more that could be done there. Well, yes, but if you're talking about viability, and not equivalency, that's very different. For example, the 3.X NPC classes (expert, warrior, commoner, artistocrat, adept) are not even close to being equal to the PC classes, but in most games, they're probably viable. The post I've been quoting talks about every choice been equal, not viable. Big difference Difficult to respond to such an absurd argument. Unequal choices are not inherently "rigged". For example, if power attack is a poor feat choice for my sorcerer because it doesn't help my spells, that doesn't mean that my choice of feats is "rigged". It just means that I should probably choose something different unless I'm building a fighter/mage. Do the rules present halfling and half-orc barbarians as being equal? Or smart wizards and stupid ones? Or rogues and warlocks? I don't see that idea coming from anyone but you. I'm not dismissing it. I'm qualifying what you're presenting as facts regarding game balance and imposing on me (and implicitly anyone else) as being something other than facts. In other words, your post that I know nothing about balance was an inappropriate overreach. I'm calling it what it is. If it existed solely in message board posts, I would. As it is, I know that Gravity exists because I observe it, just like I know that D&D (all editions) is acceptably balanced because I observe it. Because dishwashing is generally less useful in D&D than stealth is. This notion, as fleshed out by [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] above, seems unfaithful to the concept of a roleplaying game. If no choices are better or worse than any others, there's no tactical element, making it not much of a game. If feeble weaklings are as good at hand-to-hand combat as the strong and the tough, it's hard to tell any kind of believable story or imagine that you're playing a character's role. What exactly is the point of such a "balanced" game? If I make two characters, one a simple level 5 NPC dirt farmer, and the other a level 5 evoker, and their mechanical capabilities are functionally equivalent, simply because they are level 5, that's not balance. That's just ridiculous. *** So I see two things here. You compare D&D, an open-ended roleplaying game that is noncompetitive, has no definitional goals or outcomes, and no hard rules to chess, a game that is not a roleplaying game, is a simple closed system, and has a codified set of hard rules, and postulate that both should be balanced in the same way. Then you refer to something other than this completely inappropriate example as being "reductionist". :confused: Huh? Balance is important, but there have been some really gross mischaracterizations of what it is here. Seems like the OP was on to something. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at balance?
Top