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="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6015826" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>There are two goals that proper balance/mechanical quality control work toward realizing:</p><p></p><p>1) Inter-character resource parity: </p><p></p><p>Balance helps realize this goal by ensuring that each characters' deployable resources at the table will perform at, or near, a mean level of performance. This achieves two ends; </p><p></p><p>- Each character will be able to meaningfully contribute and therefore each player will have the opportunity for their character to be expressed as a legitimate protagonist within the fiction. </p><p></p><p>- The DM does not have to plan encounters/conflicts, or outright campaign arcs, around the potency (or impotency) of one (or more particular characters) due to the vast resource disparity. There is little more maddening to a player than when their martial character (who is supposed to be a legitimate protagonist) cannot meaningfully contribute in a climactic fight because he cannot hit a BBG or cannot dodge a BBG because in order to challenge "the party" you must derive numbers (AC, to hit, damage) for that BBG that pose a challenge to a martial character whose numbers are out of whack (AC, to hit). Obviously there are plenty of orthogonal cases as well that are not purely tangible statistics driven but intangible resource driven; eg fighter vs druid, all martial characters vs generalist wizard.</p><p></p><p></p><p>2) Consistency and predictability of encounter/conflict output relative to PC output: </p><p></p><p>The DM will be able to predictably extrapolate how each character's potential resource deployment, and the group in the aggregate, will affect combat and non-combat encounters specifically and campaign arcs generally. This, of course, works toward the end of the DM being able to consistently compose dynamic/interesting conflicts and plot-device for the PCs to engage with...rather than boring walk-throughs, climactic fights/scenes that fall flat, or accidental, DM-driven TPKs (or worse yet, when DMs feel they must "save the game" because they didn't reliably predict the difficulty of an encounter and put the campaign at risk due to their lack of foresight).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Caveats for each:</p><p></p><p>1 does not need need to be expressed through homogenization (it just makes it "easier" to constrain the upper and lower bounds of PC output). If properly and rigorously playtested and quality controlled, "problem-children" resources should be readily identifiable and thus manicured/manipulated upward or downward so their performance is "in-line". You can have a vast swath of inter-class diversity (mechanically and within the fiction) while still having predictable performance and relative parity.</p><p></p><p>2 does not mean that "of-level" encounters are mandated and there MUST BE NO DEVIATION OR NO SOUP FOR YOU. It is not a "world-building mandate". Having a base-line and a tutorial on how to create base-line challenges just allows for predictable challenge output vs PC output. Using that established base-line as a reliable metric, the DM can then compose as many deadly or walkthrough challenges as they wish. They can compose a world where TPKs lurk around every bend or where PC groups stomp monster faces in a Monty Haul Candyland. World-building is up to their playstyle preferences.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6015826, member: 6696971"] There are two goals that proper balance/mechanical quality control work toward realizing: 1) Inter-character resource parity: Balance helps realize this goal by ensuring that each characters' deployable resources at the table will perform at, or near, a mean level of performance. This achieves two ends; - Each character will be able to meaningfully contribute and therefore each player will have the opportunity for their character to be expressed as a legitimate protagonist within the fiction. - The DM does not have to plan encounters/conflicts, or outright campaign arcs, around the potency (or impotency) of one (or more particular characters) due to the vast resource disparity. There is little more maddening to a player than when their martial character (who is supposed to be a legitimate protagonist) cannot meaningfully contribute in a climactic fight because he cannot hit a BBG or cannot dodge a BBG because in order to challenge "the party" you must derive numbers (AC, to hit, damage) for that BBG that pose a challenge to a martial character whose numbers are out of whack (AC, to hit). Obviously there are plenty of orthogonal cases as well that are not purely tangible statistics driven but intangible resource driven; eg fighter vs druid, all martial characters vs generalist wizard. 2) Consistency and predictability of encounter/conflict output relative to PC output: The DM will be able to predictably extrapolate how each character's potential resource deployment, and the group in the aggregate, will affect combat and non-combat encounters specifically and campaign arcs generally. This, of course, works toward the end of the DM being able to consistently compose dynamic/interesting conflicts and plot-device for the PCs to engage with...rather than boring walk-throughs, climactic fights/scenes that fall flat, or accidental, DM-driven TPKs (or worse yet, when DMs feel they must "save the game" because they didn't reliably predict the difficulty of an encounter and put the campaign at risk due to their lack of foresight). Caveats for each: 1 does not need need to be expressed through homogenization (it just makes it "easier" to constrain the upper and lower bounds of PC output). If properly and rigorously playtested and quality controlled, "problem-children" resources should be readily identifiable and thus manicured/manipulated upward or downward so their performance is "in-line". You can have a vast swath of inter-class diversity (mechanically and within the fiction) while still having predictable performance and relative parity. 2 does not mean that "of-level" encounters are mandated and there MUST BE NO DEVIATION OR NO SOUP FOR YOU. It is not a "world-building mandate". Having a base-line and a tutorial on how to create base-line challenges just allows for predictable challenge output vs PC output. Using that established base-line as a reliable metric, the DM can then compose as many deadly or walkthrough challenges as they wish. They can compose a world where TPKs lurk around every bend or where PC groups stomp monster faces in a Monty Haul Candyland. World-building is up to their playstyle preferences. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How much should 5e aim at balance?
Top