D&D 5E What does balance mean to you?

[Mephista]

Balance -

A game that works in such a way that everyone (including the GM!) has fun.

If we're talking about mechanical imbalance? That's when everyone in the party has fun contributing to a combat* meaningfully. If one person is overly powerful and overshadows others, it makes the others not have fun. On the reverse side, if someone is grossly underpowered compard to the rest of the group, then they likewise don't have fun in most cases.


* I'd say more about exploration / social pillars balancing out, but let me be honest. Too much of the game is devoted to combat, and there are entire games that go without any dice rolls when it comes to social stuff; most of the time, its all solved with a single die roll when it does happen. There's no meaningful mechanical complexity here. The three pillars themselves aren't balanced, where combat overshadows the other two.

 

[Li Shenron]

What does balance mean to you?

I can summarize in two point. For me the game is balanced when:

1- all PCs are considered to be equally good in the bigger picture

2- all character options are considered to be well worth being chosen by at least one type of character

In somewhat more details...

1- Only the bigger picture matters, there is no need for all PCs to be equally good at the same thing, equally good at the same pillar, equally good in all scenes of the story, or take the spotlight an equal number of time per session, to me these are all BS targets that only force game design into directions that ultimately make the game worse. And of course the bigger picture is not measurable... any attempt at measuring balance with numbers yields misery. But that doesn't mean that balance is purely subjective either. It's very tangible at the game table when a PC is too good or too bad compared to the others, and this can easily become a dealbreaker for the players.

2- This means that there should not be character material that nobody wants because there is always a better option, there has to be at least one case when a character would want to choose it. At the same time, it also means there shouldn't be options that are too good to feel mandatory for every single character of a certain class.

 

[DemonSlayer]

...snip...

1- What does balance mean to you?

Balance to me means that each player can contribute to the game and feel good about their contribution. This of course varies from player to player and how they like to play the game. One player should not get all the lime light by say, dominating combat.

2 - When you balance an encounter, what is your desired outcome for that encounter? Do you balance combat on the encounter level, the adventuring day level, or the campaign level?

As DM, it's my job to appropriately challenge the party. Balance means that the encounter has some risk to it, and isn't trivial. I tend to balance an encounter by adjusting the number of opponents. That has significant more effect than AC & HP.

3 - When you look at your players/other players what things make you feel like something is not balanced?

When a particular player routinely makes encounters trivial.

4 - If you claim that you do not worry about balance in your encounters, what are your overall desired outcomes from combats?

I don't worry about it too much. If a combat is easy, I look at what I could have done differently to make it more difficult. As long as it took some resources and had some meaning, I'm fine with it.

5 - If something seems imbalanced to you, how do you go about fixing it?

Before I whip out the ban hammer, I analyze what happened and try to figure out a solution. I like to play and run my games as RAW. When I know something is broken, like the pouncing barbarian in Pathfinder, I simply say that's not allowed in Session 0. I also strongly encourage my players not to cheese and eke out every bonus.

6 - In video games or card games something is considered balanced if it has an overall 50% win rate against the field. A character in a fighting game would be imbalanced if it consistently won more than half its matches. Or a deck in Magic would be OP if it was more than 50% to beat the field. In dungeons and dragons that sounds absurd. My parties are probably around 100% win rate. Do either of these numbers make sense to you? Would you play in a game where the players "won" half the time? What does that mean to you?

The 50% could be considered if you place characters against one another. That's not the game. The game is to have fun and tell a good story. Like I told my mom, you don't win at D&D.

 

[ccs]

Well, that goes back to "deliberately gimping" your character. Sure, there's no reason you cannot play a fighter armed with a spork, but, at the end of the day, the most rational choice is to pick up something that does a little more damage.

And, imbalance like this leads to truncated concepts. Yup, you could, in 2e say, play a sword and board fighter with a mace. Certainly you could do that. Great. Now, your character is dealing half as much damage and getting hit pretty much exactly as often (5% less often) than my fighter.

Now, whether that bothers your or not isn't the issue. The point is, it's imbalanced. There's no reason that my character should double your damage. There's no particular reason that once concept should be that much better than all other concepts, unless, of course, you want to funnel the game towards that one concept.

Think of it this way. My character gets +5 levels at chargen than your character. Shouldn't be a problem right? After all, balance is secondary to concept, so, the fact that I have 5 more levels than you shouldn't bother you in the least.

Somehow I think that most groups would be unhappy with that arrangement. And, even if they are happy, it's still not balanced.

Now, in a balanced system, concept comes first. After all, your concept and my concept are roughly in the same ballpark when it comes to effectiveness, so, no worries. You can take your concept, I'll take mine, and everyone's groovy. but, in a balanced system, the most rational choice is to take the most effective option. Do you have to? Nope, but, the system is certainly pushing you that way. So, longswords were king in AD&D. Two weapon fighting was king in 2e. Casters at higher levels ruled 3e.

5e, OTOH, is largely pretty solidly balanced. I'm drawing a blank so far on any really clear winners. Dex over Str maybe, but, the jury's still out on that one.

BTW, I believe you've forgotten a few rules for 2E 2wf other than not using a shield. Or were just playing it wrong.
Like:
*The -2/-4 attack roll penalties
*The fact that your 2nd weapon has to be a size category smaller & lighter. Unless it's a dagger.
So at best your rolling an extra d6 & won't hit quite as often as if you were using just 1 weapon.

You think I'm gimping myself by not sometimes not dealing around 3+? extra damage/round IF I hit with that 2nd weapon.
And I think you're gimping yourself for all those times where you'll miss attacks & deal NO damage with your primary weapon thanks to rolling with a penalty.
Looks balanced to me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

BTW, I believe you've forgotten a few rules for 2E 2wf other than not using a shield. Or were just playing it wrong.

Well, or maybe you were? Or were using a variant and now remember it as the 'right' way? Dueling memories, and all, who knows?

IIRC (and I played 1e much more heavily than 2e, so may be mixing bits of 'em up):

*The -2/-4 attack roll penalties

Were negated completely on the primary hand by a high enough DEX, and could get as low as -1 on the off-hand.

*The fact that your 2nd weapon has to be a size category smaller & lighter. Unless it's a dagger.

I thought size categories of weapons was a 3e thing, maybe it was 2e C&T first?
Anyway, the list was even more limited in 1e, and you'd typically use a /pair/ of such weapons - a pair of hand-axes or daggers in 1e, shortswords and maybe a few others in 2e - to maximize the impact of weapon specialization.

So at best your rolling an extra d6 & won't hit quite as often as if you were using just 1 weapon.

You can be hitting exactly as well as with the 1 weapon and shield, the second weapon being pure profit, even if it is still at a -1 or -2. What's more, if you're using paired specialized weapon, that bonus to damage applies to all your attacks, as did any bonus from % STR if you're so lucky (or had Gauntlets of Ogre Power), the nerf to off-hand weapon damage being introduced in 3.0...
Now, I don't recall if it was official, but some DMs ruled just one bonus attack/round from the off-hand weapon, while others allowed a full attack routine with each - ...hmm... the actual rule at some point may have been a 1 step improvement 1 to 3/2 to 2 to 5/2 to 3, being the steps... or was that just/also the specialization perk... or maybe a weapon of speed? :shrug: ( I did have a 1e character who used an off-hand weapon, was specialized in the primary weapon which just happened to be 'of speed,' and even got boots of speed, so, I could easily be mixing up which came from what...)

Anyway, it got ridiculous.

I mean, % STR must have seemed ridiculous to the old guard that started with Chainmail & 0D&D - you could have a 1st level fighter with a +3 to hit dishing out 7-16/9-24 (far cry from all weapons doing a die of damage). Then we got specialization, another +1 to hit and +2 damage, then double-specializing +3/+3, and at some point specialization upped your attack progression, then you layer on paired weapons for even more attacks with all those same bonuses, and, you prettymuch had the high-water-mark of melee brokedness for quite a while, if not ever. That's what itterative attacks and nerfed TWF in 3.0 were in reaction to.

 

[Sacrosanct]

BTW, I believe you've forgotten a few rules for 2E 2wf other than not using a shield. Or were just playing it wrong.
Like:
*The -2/-4 attack roll penalties
*The fact that your 2nd weapon has to be a size category smaller & lighter. Unless it's a dagger.
So at best your rolling an extra d6 & won't hit quite as often as if you were using just 1 weapon.

You think I'm gimping myself by not sometimes not dealing around 3+? extra damage/round IF I hit with that 2nd weapon.
And I think you're gimping yourself for all those times where you'll miss attacks & deal NO damage with your primary weapon thanks to rolling with a penalty.
Looks balanced to me.

Yeah, you get that bonus from AC from the shield every round, against every attack. (assuming we're not talking about magic items here). Contrast that to a penalty of -2/-4 on every attack of yours, and I fail to see how one is extremely better than the other. Not enough to sway from a concept at any rate.

 

[DaveDash]

Balance is crucial in a strategy game, but not that much in a role playing game.
A lot of recent threads about the champion, resting, exp budget are about balancing a strategy game.
Caring too much of balance in a role play game is a dead end.

Well there are varying degrees in which d&d can be played as role playing game or a rollplaying game. We tend to play more of the later than the former, so while there are some roleplay elements, D&D is a sandbox rogue like style strategy game to us.

Balance is still important - especially character balance, but the DMs ability to provide a consistent challenge within the framework of the rules is still important. I personally get annoyed at too much free form roleplaying/rules lite, because then D&D feels less like a game, and more like an advanced version of cops and robbers where he with the best imagination shines.

 

[Krachek]

Well there are varying degrees in which d&d can be played as role playing game or a rollplaying game. We tend to play more of the later than the former, so while there are some roleplay elements, D&D is a sandbox rogue like style strategy game to us.

Balance is still important - especially character balance, but the DMs ability to provide a consistent challenge within the framework of the rules is still important. I personally get annoyed at too much free form roleplaying/rules lite, because then D&D feels less like a game, and more like an advanced version of cops and robbers where he with the best imagination shines.

"Playing DnD is an exercise in collaborative creation."
It is what you can read in the preface on the PHB.

Hopefully you can turn the game into an "exercise of competitive & strategic dice rolling".
But then you are starting a deep home brew adaptation of the game.

 

[DaveDash]

"Playing DnD is an exercise in collaborative creation."
It is what you can read in the preface on the PHB.

Hopefully you can turn the game into an "exercise of competitive & strategic dice rolling".
But then you are starting a deep home brew adaptation of the game.

Sorry to be the bearer of unfortunate news, but there isn't one "true" way of playing D&d.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

System balance to me is about giving the freedom to choose to make a character the way you want to make it without losing out so badly that your character can not keep up with someone who "optimises". In fact, in a perfectly balanced system, optimisation is almost non-existent. Of course, there are still bad choices, like making an 8 Strength, 8 Dex, 8 Con fighter because "I wanna be special!" but no system is safe from that level of stupid.

5e, OTOH, is largely pretty solidly balanced. I'm drawing a blank so far on any really clear winners. Dex over Str maybe, but, the jury's still out on that one.

Wait, what? I was with you up until this. I guarantee you I can break 5e with about a dozen build choices that I'd argue are now so well known that I'd wager even you could rattle off a few of them off the top of your head. Do you really think that these builds aren't clear winners? They can mean the difference of about 50-60 DPR, and that's just on the DPR builds.