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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6010240" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>This doesn't make sense to me. If the F and MU are balanced at mid-levels - and if the game is playable at mid-levels - then why can't that balance be projected back to lower levels, and forward to upper levels?</p><p></p><p>I mean, it might be good or bad design to have a game with the contrasting power progressions you describe, but it is not <em>mandatory</em>. There is nothing inherent in the notion of a 1st level MU that makes it weaker than a 1st level fighter. Likewise for 12th level.</p><p></p><p>I don't understand this notion of "vanilla game", either. If classic D&D is playable at fun at (say) 5th to 8th levels, when the fighter and MU are roughly balanced, then why would it be objectionably "vanilla" to set up the whole game like that?</p><p></p><p>I don't get this either. Why does Middle Earth require that fighter and magic-users of the same level be radically different in mechanical effectivenss? Couldn't you just stat up the hobbits as (say) level 1, Gimli and Legolas as (say) level 3 to 5, Aragorn as (say) level 8 or so, and Gandalf as (say) level 12 or so?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I assume that you are aware that many games that balance fighters and casters exist and are played. D&D 4e is one of them. AD&D and 3E played between about levels 4 and 9 are another two. Rolemaster does a reasonable job at low to mid levels also. And I'm sure there are some points-buy fantasy games that do OK at it too.</p><p></p><p>You may find all these games boring - though I'm confused, because you seem to say that you like AD&D between levels 4 and 9 - but plenty of others don't.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what you think the action resolution rules of an RPG are for. But some, perhaps many RPGers - including me - regard them as the principal means whereby the players can, via their PCs, engage the situations that the GM frames for them. If action resolution is just about GM preferences and GM fiat, then what exactly are the players contributing, other than a bit of colour and some suggestions for the "story" that the GM-as-author may or may not take up?</p><p></p><p>My understanding is that the druid's animal companion is frequently comparable in effectiveness to a fighter. Given that the druid also has him-/herself and his/her spells, that does suggest a degree of discrepancy in mechanical effectiveness.</p><p></p><p>I'm looking at the 7th level Brown Bear, for example. Its AC is pretty bad, but its attacks look OK: a 7th level fighter would be what? +7 for level, +2 for item, +1 for feat, +5 for stat for +15/+10 for 1d8+9, whereas the bear is +11/+11 for 1d8+8 - but with Improved Grab, and what strikes me as a fairly good grapple modifier. (The giant crocodile seems mecahnically a little more effective, but a bit less practical.)</p><p></p><p>Now 3E is not my game, so perhaps I'm badly underoptimising my 7th level fighter there. But I'm pretty sure I can optimise my 7th level druid as well, between spells and wildshape! And I've still got my bear.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree with GreyICE on this issue. Of course it's possible, through a high degree of tweaking in encounter design, and a high degree of GM force in action resolution, to "balance" a fighter and a druid in the same party. The question is whether this is (i) a necessary feature of RPG design, and (ii) desirable in an RPG?</p><p></p><p>The answer to (i) obviously is No - given that there are RPGs, including fantasy RPGs, that don't require such tweaking and force. The answer to (ii) is more complex, but I think that a lot of people don't want a game where so much of what happens is in the hands of the GM. As I asked earlier in this post, at a certain point I lose sight of exactly what the players are doing, other than providing a bit of colour as they learn from the GM what happens to "their" PCs.</p><p></p><p>What you say is true, but I think that system shouldn't therefore be under-emphasised.</p><p></p><p>For example, if some players - via their PCs - effectively have a high degree of control over scene-framing, but others don't, then that first group of players can, in effect, manufacture their own spotlights (Teleport, Rope Trick etc). And if the GM counters this by a strong application of force, then we're into a playstyle that many of us find pretty dysfunctional.</p><p></p><p>Similarly, if the game is designed to support a certain generic form of conflict resolution - namely, combat between the PCs and evil enemies - and the system renders some PCs noticeably more mechanically capable in that arena than others - then maintaining comparable spotlight time is going to require a lot of GM departure from default system assumptions in framing conflicts. This is probably not as bad as GM force in action resolution and to counter player scene-framing (or scene-avoidance) strategies, but I still think it can veer into antagonism (or else extreme player deprotagonism) pretty easily.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6010240, member: 42582"] This doesn't make sense to me. If the F and MU are balanced at mid-levels - and if the game is playable at mid-levels - then why can't that balance be projected back to lower levels, and forward to upper levels? I mean, it might be good or bad design to have a game with the contrasting power progressions you describe, but it is not [I]mandatory[/I]. There is nothing inherent in the notion of a 1st level MU that makes it weaker than a 1st level fighter. Likewise for 12th level. I don't understand this notion of "vanilla game", either. If classic D&D is playable at fun at (say) 5th to 8th levels, when the fighter and MU are roughly balanced, then why would it be objectionably "vanilla" to set up the whole game like that? I don't get this either. Why does Middle Earth require that fighter and magic-users of the same level be radically different in mechanical effectivenss? Couldn't you just stat up the hobbits as (say) level 1, Gimli and Legolas as (say) level 3 to 5, Aragorn as (say) level 8 or so, and Gandalf as (say) level 12 or so? I assume that you are aware that many games that balance fighters and casters exist and are played. D&D 4e is one of them. AD&D and 3E played between about levels 4 and 9 are another two. Rolemaster does a reasonable job at low to mid levels also. And I'm sure there are some points-buy fantasy games that do OK at it too. You may find all these games boring - though I'm confused, because you seem to say that you like AD&D between levels 4 and 9 - but plenty of others don't. I'm not sure what you think the action resolution rules of an RPG are for. But some, perhaps many RPGers - including me - regard them as the principal means whereby the players can, via their PCs, engage the situations that the GM frames for them. If action resolution is just about GM preferences and GM fiat, then what exactly are the players contributing, other than a bit of colour and some suggestions for the "story" that the GM-as-author may or may not take up? My understanding is that the druid's animal companion is frequently comparable in effectiveness to a fighter. Given that the druid also has him-/herself and his/her spells, that does suggest a degree of discrepancy in mechanical effectiveness. I'm looking at the 7th level Brown Bear, for example. Its AC is pretty bad, but its attacks look OK: a 7th level fighter would be what? +7 for level, +2 for item, +1 for feat, +5 for stat for +15/+10 for 1d8+9, whereas the bear is +11/+11 for 1d8+8 - but with Improved Grab, and what strikes me as a fairly good grapple modifier. (The giant crocodile seems mecahnically a little more effective, but a bit less practical.) Now 3E is not my game, so perhaps I'm badly underoptimising my 7th level fighter there. But I'm pretty sure I can optimise my 7th level druid as well, between spells and wildshape! And I've still got my bear. I agree with GreyICE on this issue. Of course it's possible, through a high degree of tweaking in encounter design, and a high degree of GM force in action resolution, to "balance" a fighter and a druid in the same party. The question is whether this is (i) a necessary feature of RPG design, and (ii) desirable in an RPG? The answer to (i) obviously is No - given that there are RPGs, including fantasy RPGs, that don't require such tweaking and force. The answer to (ii) is more complex, but I think that a lot of people don't want a game where so much of what happens is in the hands of the GM. As I asked earlier in this post, at a certain point I lose sight of exactly what the players are doing, other than providing a bit of colour as they learn from the GM what happens to "their" PCs. What you say is true, but I think that system shouldn't therefore be under-emphasised. For example, if some players - via their PCs - effectively have a high degree of control over scene-framing, but others don't, then that first group of players can, in effect, manufacture their own spotlights (Teleport, Rope Trick etc). And if the GM counters this by a strong application of force, then we're into a playstyle that many of us find pretty dysfunctional. Similarly, if the game is designed to support a certain generic form of conflict resolution - namely, combat between the PCs and evil enemies - and the system renders some PCs noticeably more mechanically capable in that arena than others - then maintaining comparable spotlight time is going to require a lot of GM departure from default system assumptions in framing conflicts. This is probably not as bad as GM force in action resolution and to counter player scene-framing (or scene-avoidance) strategies, but I still think it can veer into antagonism (or else extreme player deprotagonism) pretty easily. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at balance?
Top