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

[Tony Vargas]

The only one of those PCs that I think could be built in 3E is the last one, and (unless there is some sort of cleric-archer Prestige Class in a splatbook that I haven't heard of) his clericism would be fairly weak.

The answer to "is there a PrC in 3.x that...." is almost always 'yes.' There were just so many, something has to be close. One of the good things - probably the most innovative thing - about 3e was multiclassing, and with it, you could build to almost any concept. No gaurantee it'd be viable, especially along side optimized tier-1 classes, but it could almost certainly be built. I'm very rusty on PrCs, and haven't built a 3e character in years, but...

*a dwarf fighter-cleric polearm melee controller, who is also pretty handy with his artefact mordenkrad Overhwelm;

Doing melee control with a polearm in 3e is nearly effortless - the equivalent of Threatening Reach just for picking up a polearm. Proficiency, Combat Reflexes, maybe Improved Trip and you're there. A fighter level or two is all you need (and you don't really /need/ it unless you're impatient to complete the feats quickly), self-buffing makes him very potent, all the other CoDzilla goodies are on tap, and, as a Dwarf, fighter is even your favored class.

*a drow chaos sorcerer who conjures up bursts of light, blasts of fire, and wind and thunder (and is able to fly on the winds he summons), who draws power from the Abyss via his cloaks of demonskin and the strange runes inscribed on his demonskins and the inside of his eyelids, who is also trained in drow jujutsu (monk multiclass to do damage in a burst after a hit, and an at-will melee basic attack with his off-hand dagger), and who is a member of a strange Corellon cult (and bears Corellon's divine boon);

A lot of that is flavor. The sorcerer class is very amenable to customization via spell choice, so anything you might picture probably has some close spell analogue, even if it's True Strike or Tensers Transformation or some other self-buff to stand in for your martial arts.

*an angelic (deva) invoker who is the rebirth of a human wizard, a cultist of the Raven Queen, Ioun, Erathis and (perhaps) Venca, a master scholar and ritualist, and who can also conjure seering divine radiance - and whose ritual book is possessed by a Book Imp sent by Bane and Levistus to keep watch on him;

Ritualist would, of course, map to wizard, so probably a wizard for lack of the Invoker class, or, as you say, a Mystic Theurge. With all that cult salad she's got going, maybe even an ur-Priest. She'd be an Assimar instead of a Deva, presumably.

*a tiefling paladin of the Raven Queen, aQuesting Knight who is neither especially strong nor athletic, but whose strength of character and devotion is manifest - to both friends and enemies - in everything he does, and who, when combat comes, is able to strike with the strength of ten;

A tiefling paladin is doable, I suppose. The STR vs CHA issue is one all pallys face, of course. Magic can make up for a modest lack of STR.

*an elven ranger-cleric, who bolsters his allies with healing and calls down the curse of the Raven Queen upon the enemies he hunts.

Since the 3e ranger is already a caster, little need to actually multi-class. Your 'favored enemy' bonus models the 'curse,' (as I'm sure quarry does in 4e). No worries.

Sure, mechanically, those are going to vary a lot in practicality, ease of build, and effectiveness - 3e gave you options, not balance - but each concept should be quite possible.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

I would be okay with 1e levels of balance. I'd appreciate more balance, for sure, but I want them to focus on fun. All too often, it seems, the two are confused.

This.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

"Balance," as it is usually meant as combat power equivalence, is a crock. I've played very balanced games; I've played games with widely divergent power levels; they were equally fun. Combat balance is probably necessary in a game like WoW (from my experience with that game) but definitely not for an RPG.

The only sort of balance I will acknowledge as important is spotlight balance. Every one gets some time to shine, something important that they're the best at. Everyone has something useful to do in most situations. That's as much as I need, and it mostly comes from DM skill rather than game rules.

When balance becomes a design priority, it always seems that more important things (to me) are sacrificed. Time spent fine tuning balance would be better spent creating a more compelling setting, more interesting monsters, more fun spells, more interesting NPCs, etc, etc. Fine tuning balance has often resulted in overly complicated mechanics and games that read like car repair manuals.

In 5E I definitely don't want to see all classes "balanced" in the traditional sense. As specific examples, I would like a bard that is weaker at combat but stronger in interaction, and a thief that is weaker in combat but stronger in exploration. This is assuming that they actually do give equal weight to the three pillars by mechanical means.

So to the OP questions, "How much should 5E balance?" my answer is not at all.

 

[FireLance]

"Special" is by definition out of the ordinary. If everyone is special, there is no ordinary character to use as a frame of reference, therefore, no one is special.

To me, it's all a matter of perspective. You could look at the following four characters:

1. Strong guy: Str 18, Con 10, Dex 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
2. Agile guy: Str 10, Con 10, Dex 18, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
3. Smart guy: Str 10, Con 10, Dex 10, Int 18, Wis 10, Cha 10
4. Persuasive guy: Str 10, Con 10, Dex 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 18

and say either:

A: None of them are special. They all have one 18 and 5 10s.

B: They are all special. One is super strong, the second is really agile, the third is very smart and the fourth is extremely persuasive.

I'm going to go with option B.

 

[pemerton]

Tony, thanks for the reply and the builds.

Doing melee control with a polearm in 3e is nearly effortless - the equivalent of Threatening Reach just for picking up a polearm. Proficiency, Combat Reflexes, maybe Improved Trip and you're there. A fighter level or two is all you need (and you don't really /need/ it unless you're impatient to complete the feats quickly), self-buffing makes him very potent, all the other CoDzilla goodies are on tap, and, as a Dwarf, fighter is even your favored class.

I don't think there's much forced movement there, is there? And the self-buffing changes the character quite a bit. Can you build a viable polearm paladin? Might be a better fit.

A lot of that is flavor. The sorcerer class is very amenable to customization via spell choice, so anything you might picture probably has some close spell analogue, even if it's True Strike or Tensers Transformation or some other self-buff to stand in for your martial arts.

I don't think this is as close as your polearm tripper. Buffing with Tenser's doesn't seem very similar to Cloud of Darkness + Flame Spiral + Action Point + Cyclonic Vortex + Drow ninjutsu to put them in a lock and stop them shifting out of the darkness next turn.

Ritualist would, of course, map to wizard, so probably a wizard for lack of the Invoker class, or, as you say, a Mystic Theurge. With all that cult salad she's got going, maybe even an ur-Priest. She'd be an Assimar instead of a Deva, presumably.

You've still lost the melee capabilities this PC (somewhat oddly) seems to have.

A tiefling paladin is doable, I suppose. The STR vs CHA issue is one all pallys face, of course. Magic can make up for a modest lack of STR.

Hmm. A theme emerges here about "magic making up for things".

Since the 3e ranger is already a caster, little need to actually multi-class. Your 'favored enemy' bonus models the 'curse,' (as I'm sure quarry does in 4e). No worries.

I missed the ranger spells. How is there healing and buffing?

The "curse" (as we play it) is actually the +1 to hit for Quarry in conjunction with Battlefield Archer.

Favoured enemy has its normal suck - but to me the ranger-cleric did seem the easiest to put together.

Sure, mechanically, those are going to vary a lot in practicality, ease of build, and effectiveness - 3e gave you options, not balance - but each concept should be quite possible.

I'm not sure I can entirely divorce, in my mind, realising a concept from realising it effectively (or at least viably), but your effort is appreciated!

Though you're not really making me interested in giving 3E a second look! If this is 3E's selling point, give me 4e!

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's the kind of conversation you would have with your wife (as far as the analogy goes) or the gaming table (as far as the social contract goes)? Because my answer would be "This isn't fun/worth it; I want a separation"

My actual answer would be to try to de-escalate and find out what the actual problem was. Because it has nothing to do with garbage cans that have never existed. The direct answer would be about the one I indicated and would, as you say, just add to the problems.

And the actual problem at the gaming table is that the rules are screwed up badly and we haven't taken any steps to fix them. This is an illustration that the rules are not fit for purpose although we might be able to make them be with judicious written and unwritten additions.

That may be D&D tradition, but it certainly wouldn't have to be the case in a version of D&D that strove for balance. Consider encounter budgets. In a D&D that places primacy on balance, they will be specified. Certainly, tradition argues that for D&D a DM may ignore them and have you face whatever whimsy dictates. However, the argument can be made that a DM who ignores a stricture on such a thing is no longer playing the "RAW" game, and certainly wouldn't be playing a "balanced" version of it.

You can argue that they are no longer playing a RAW game ... if you ignore the actual rules as they are actually written. And the guidance on DMing that says that you should sometimes blow the encounter budget (something that was in 3.0, 3.5, and 4e - but that WotC more or less ignored in published modules since the backlash against the Roper in The Forge of Fury). In short to argue that you aren't playing a RAW or a RAI game you'd have to use a different set of rules to any edition of D&D.

 

[Underman]

My actual answer would be to try to de-escalate and find out what the actual problem was. Because it has nothing to do with garbage cans that have never existed. The direct answer would be about the one I indicated and would, as you say, just add to the problems.

In my analogy, the garbage can did exist. You retconned the garbage can to be non-existent, thus creating a brand new analogy. For that reason, I don't know even know what we were talking about anymore.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In my analogy, the garbage can did exist. You retconned the garbage can to be non-existent, thus creating a brand new analogy. For that reason, I don't know even know what we were talking about anymore.

No. Part of my point was that appealing to a social contract to supplement the rules of the game without first putting the effort in to set the social contract at that table makes precisely as much sense as nagging someone for not putting the garbage in the garbage can when the garbage can doesn't exist.

The only part of the Social Contract that is directly linked to the rules is the part that comes from the agreement to play by these rules. The rest needs to be groped for by everyone, often causing a lot of bad feeling along the way as what one person thought was in the supposed social contract wasn't in someone else's version.

When you talk about The Social Contract you are talking about something that is mostly a mirage. A social contract for any given table exists. But the idea of fixing the rules through the local social contract actually endangers the fabric of the social contract as the fact people have different unspoken expectations and desires means that there will be tensions. And one of the purposes of game rules is so that we can all get on the same page and agree to it, thus meaning we don't have to stress the local social contract with pretend elfgames.

Any time you talk about fixing the game through the social contract you are demonstrating that (a) the game is not fit for purpose and (b) people's differing expectations shattering some gaming groups and even friendships is an acceptable loss.

 

[Underman]

No. Part of my point was that appealing to a social contract to supplement the rules of the game without first putting the effort in to set the social contract at that table makes precisely as much sense as nagging someone for not putting the garbage in the garbage can when the garbage can doesn't exist.

Perhaps you are overstating your case or we're talking past each other or you don't understand the analogy of taking out the garbage. I'm asking that when there's an area not covered by the rule, then don't be a dick. I don't want 5E to be a game designed specifically for dicks.

 

[Emerikol]

Again, what you claim is "metagame dissonance" is no different that what you claim isn't. What you should be saying is "These are the metagame constructs I like/dislike" because they're ALL player-based, metagame constructs.

Have you read the dissociative mechanics article through? It is very very clear the differences between them. It is not realism related at all. There is a very clear reason why fireball once per day is not dissociative and 'come and get it' is dissociative.

The daily limit on fireball is an IN WORLD concept. The wizards of Greyhawk City sitting in their libraries know all about daily limitations on spells. The character knows when they cast a spell they cannot cast it again. The player and the character are in sync.

When a fighter pulls off a daily manuever (especially a highly damaging one), the character is hoping he can pull it off again next turn. Or at least again before the day is out. The reason he CANNOT do it again is purely a game rule. There is NO in world reason he cannot do it again. In fact if you were on the training ground doing manuevers you'd show the manuever to others repeatedly without complaint from anyone. The player though decides at this particular moment in the story, the fighter is going to get an opening that lets him pull of the attack and once he's got that opening and exploited it he won't do it again that day. That's purely a player decision.

Thousands of independent people see this clearly even if you don't and they came up with the idea independently. If they all took a test on what was and wasn't dissociative they would judge the powers uniformly or at least such a high degree of parallelism to remove the possibility of random chance. So yes there is something that ties all these peoples views on the matter together. You should try to understand what that is instead of denying it exists.