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

[Steely_Dan]

Might I suggest that the game should be built around the idea it's DM'd by an average DM and not a perfect one?

True; but that's what makes or breaks this game.

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't see (npi) how that's an issue. Magic-users and Clerics both had Continual Light, so out of the lowest levels you say "I pull out my coin with continual light." Then Light became a cantrip, then an at-will cantrip. And what adventuring party didn't go into a dungeon with torches, Bullseye lanterns, and enough oil to re-enact the bombing of Dresden?

Nobody ever heard of torches? Or lanterns?

(I mean, Light & Continual Light are nice, but they won't light a web, a Web, or a warming campfire...)

Combined with dungeons and caverns that rarely include more than a 20ft straight line, your meager light sources are useless...and whenever you do enter an open area or large cavern, your light sources are conveniently not powerful enough to do anything but illuminate you clearly for the dozens of goblin archers that selectively target anyone wearing a robe.

Keep in mind, I just said it was a favorite trick, not the only trick. There's plenty more: like never ever running into an enemy wizard who has his spellbook on him (or anywhere, for that matter). Never ever run into monsters that are anything but piles of hp, a weapon, and infravision. Treasure....just keep out all those useless scrolls and wands etc., only put in those that directly benefit the heavies when used. Perhaps most importantly, end all campaigns before 7th level, preferably before 5th.

And remember we're talking about a DM who uses his adjudicative powers to rule heavily in favor of some classes, but not others. So the wizard can't see well enough to target his spell, but the fighter wearing a heavy helm gets no penalty for fighting the same critter. I've even witnessed a wizard being told that he couldn't see past the torchbearer because the flame would blind his vision (possibly accurate, but unique to that DM, IME.) The Ogre just around the corner can be attacked by the fighter, but not targeted by Magic Missile. Even when the mage isn't shut down completely, "Magic is dangerous" so just about every spell that isn't Cure X Wounds has loads of creative unintended consequences.

I've only had two such DMs, ever, but one of them came right out and told me that "The first best purpose of a wizard is to stand in the back and chuck flaming oil. Truth be told, that's not even enough, because a cleric can do that and at least heal." (I played a thief in his game, and it wasn't a whole lot better for me, either.) I dunno for sure, but I suspect both of them stayed Old-School. 3e's fairly explicit rules about cover and the like probably didn't sit well with them. (Come to think about it, both were playing "1e" well into the 2e era, so...)

Again, I've had it go the other way far more often, although maybe not to the depth that some LFQW warriors seem to experience. However, I think the propensity to favor casters (at least until 3e) is a combination of culture and rules, not strictly a rules question.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Combined with dungeons and caverns that rarely include more than a 20ft straight line, your meager light sources are useless...and whenever you do enter an open area or large cavern, your light sources are conveniently not powerful enough to do anything but illuminate you clearly for the dozens of goblin archers that selectively target anyone wearing a robe.

So...just like me and most of my DMs.

Which is why, among other things, many of us developed pactices like enchanting pouches full of sling stones or copper pieces or bolt/arrowheads with CL spells.

(Which I'm sure you've seen...)

 

[Emerikol]

Yeah, if you just look at the mechanics of the classes, the storied popularity of the fighter is inexplicable. If you look at the archetypes it represents, though, it makes a lot more sense. The genre is /filled/ with warriors, very few of them run around casting spells like Paladins and Rangers, it's a lot less full of thieves and casters.

I really have never played with anyone in a campaign that griped about the fighter. I know thats just my experience but thats what it is. I think you might be shocked to discover that a lot of Pathfinder players feel this way.

As I understand from other conversations, you mostly DM. So that's how I mostly take your opinions: not from the perspective of a player trying to get away with something for a favored class, but from that of a DM wishing to use the system to shape the campaign to his vision.

Yeah I DM 95% of the time. I've played some. I find no one DMs as well as me so I prefer to just do it myself . I think if I played I'd prefer a totally different game maybe even a different genre. But I really don't have enough time to play in more than one campaign so DMing is the norm for me.

If you look through the story hour, you'll find long-running, successful 3.x (even 2e to 3.0 to 3.5) campaigns, in which every PC is a caster.

Well that could be aid about any class.

On the flip side, 4e campaigns have no need to 'recruit' fighters, as long as you get some sort of defender, you can play the concept you like. There's even an arcane defender. But, sure, 4e campaigns have more than enough martial characters. When the essentials-only rule is lifted at Encounters-like events, you even end up with all-martial parties.

I've only ever had to recruit wizards and clerics. Never a fighter.

No, there are too many of these 'camps' that are too inflexible, there's no way /5e/ could make them all happy, nor even come close. Though, honestly, they all should have already been happy before: happily gobbling up new material for & playing 4e or Pathfinder or DCC or OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord or Myth & Magic or their other retro-clone of choice.

I think the 3e people are ready for a new game. If Pathfinder was coming out with Pathfinder 2.0 I'd be really interested in what they were doing. If they hired Monte as lead I'd be overjoyed. You see it's been a lot longer since we got a new game.

There will be another ed of Pathfinder eventually.

Probably sooner than you think.

In part because some of the things you say in support of those views strike me as invalid, and I have that afore-mentioned little compulsion to set the record straight. Also in part because we don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues. But, sure, I'd love to spend more time talking up good ideas for 5e than talking down misrepresentations of 4e.

When I don't mind X and I actively dislike Y, it is not arbitrary. But I realize for some people the only way for them to tell what was or wasn't was to get someone who did understand to point out the issues. I think most stuff 4e people want could be done in a non-dissociative way. I also think classes wouldn't have to be similarly structured to make 4e people happy. 4e people want a result. 4e gave them that result. 3e people felt the price was too high but most of them didn't hate the goal just the method. So the key would be to achieve at least some of the goals in a different more palatable way. Then 4e people and 3e people could be happier.

They're trying to do something. CS hints at the kind of potential the 3.x fighter had. Customizeability and round-by-round versatility. Problem was, plonked down in a world full of 'tier-1' Vancian casters, enemies that could paste him in one round, and monsters he couldn't use any of his cute tricks against, even if that potential had been fulfilled, it wouldn't've been just another trap choice. I see very little to indicate that the 5e fighter is going to do any better. There's a lot more to be seen, of course, but I'm not the optimistic type.

We've hashed this a lot but I just don't see it in my games. Things I disliked about 3e have nothing to do with this. Fighters are great and every bit as fun as Wizards in my campaigns. Wizards are more utilitarian but they by no means the kill leaders.

 

[Lanefan]

Might I suggest that the game should be built around the idea it's DM'd by an average DM and not a perfect one?

I'd rather it be built around the idea of taking average DMs and by any means available turning them into perfect ones; ditto bad ==> good, awful ==> tolerable, etc.

Combined with dungeons and caverns that rarely include more than a 20ft straight line, your meager light sources are useless...and whenever you do enter an open area or large cavern, your light sources are conveniently not powerful enough to do anything but illuminate you clearly for the dozens of goblin archers that selectively target anyone wearing a robe.

Yep.

And easily countered by simply having the wizard stay 10 steps back of the light source, just past the edge of the darkness...

Keep in mind, I just said it was a favorite trick, not the only trick. There's plenty more: like never ever running into an enemy wizard who has his spellbook on him (or anywhere, for that matter).

As parties are usually invading said enemy wizard's home it's unlikely she'd be met carrying her books around. But yes, they should be find-able somewhere.

So the wizard can't see well enough to target his spell, but the fighter wearing a heavy helm gets no penalty for fighting the same critter.

Solution: make the wizard roll to aim the spell just like the fighter has to roll to hit with her sword...

The Ogre just around the corner can be attacked by the fighter, but not targeted by Magic Missile.

This one makes perfect sense, in fact: a fighter can reach around the corner to hit the Ogre but magic missile (or any missile, for that matter*) only goes in a straight line.

* - except boomerang, but that's - pun intended - a corner case.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

I really have never played with anyone in a campaign that griped about the fighter. I know thats just my experience but thats what it is. I think you might be shocked to discover that a lot of Pathfinder players feel this way.

I would not be shocked to hear that on-line.

Yeah I DM 95% of the time. I've played some. I find no one DMs as well as me so I prefer to just do it myself .

Heh.

Originally Posted by Tony Vargas ==========
If you look through the story hour, you'll find long-running, successful 3.x (even 2e to 3.0 to 3.5) campaigns, in which every PC is a caster.
==============
Well that could be aid about any class.

Well, I didn't say 'class,' just 'caster' there are a /lot/ of 3.x casters.

Here's a well-known example: Sagiro's Story-HourThe PCs are two clerics, a cleric with a rogue level or two, two wizards, and a wizard with a fighter level or two (maybe, it's unclear). NPCs include an orc fighter and halfling rogue.

Feel free to go through the Story Hour looking for a party of all non-casting PCs.

I think the 3e people are ready for a new game. If Pathfinder was coming out with Pathfinder 2.0 I'd be really interested in what they were doing. If they hired Monte as lead I'd be overjoyed.

I'm sure it's coming (inevitable, really, unless 5e slays Pathfinder the way Pathfinder helped kill 4e), and he'd be a prime candidate.

Personally, I prefer an edition with a long run, and a quantum leap forward in the next ed. It's more time exploring the full potential of the game - RPGs have a /lot/ of potential depth - I've rarely found myself picking up a new ed without regretting characters or campaigns I never got to try under the old one (picking up 3.0 being an exception that leaps to mind). And, it's more reason to move on and adopt the new instead of sticking with the old.

When I don't mind X and I actively dislike Y, it is not arbitrary.

I don't believe it is. Though 'a matter of taste,' may seem 'arbitrary,' it's really more personal for instance. My hackles just go up when a stated rationale includes some invalid or factually questionable elements. I think most of us go through life without really /examining/ our likes and dislikes, so even when we try to explain them, we end up rationalizing rather than elucidating. That's one thing about discussions like this: they can be used to refine arguments for or against something, or to better understand how you came to be on the side you're arguing for, and thus whether you really want to stay there.

(Man, I'm getting overly philosophical, here.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I would not be shocked to hear that on-line.

Heh.

Well, I didn't say 'class,' just 'caster' there are a /lot/ of 3.x casters.

Here's a well-known example: Sagiro's Story-HourThe PCs are two clerics, a cleric with a rogue level or two, two wizards, and a wizard with a fighter level or two (maybe, it's unclear). NPCs include an orc fighter and halfling rogue.

Feel free to go through the Story Hour looking for a party of all non-casting PCs.

Unfortunately I don't have a story hour, but if I had, I could at least, unsurprisingly, present a 4E example of an all martial group. (Ranger, Warlord, Fighter). Though the Warlord is a ritualist. Which may be about what you'd expect in 4E - magic is still very powerful and useful, but primarily in the form of rituals, not class-specific spells.

There is an elegance to it. In earlier editions, teleportation and divination was limited to pure spellcasters. In 4E, traditional spellcasting classes have access to this ability often by default (at least Cleric/Wizard do), but everyone can get access to rituals, and overall I get the impression this turns it more into a group ability than a character ability - anyone could do it (it's just one feat!), but only one needs to do cover it.

 

[Emerikol]

....
Feel free to go through the Story Hour looking for a party of all non-casting PCs.

I missed or forgot you'd made your comment in the context of the story hour. I agree we are fascinated by magic and the magical. Gandalf is by far the most interesting character for me in LOTR and thats in a world where magic is perhaps not as dominant as in D&D.

I'm sure it's coming (inevitable, really, unless 5e slays Pathfinder the way Pathfinder helped kill 4e), and he'd be a prime candidate.

I'm sure Pathfinder 2e is coming. I expect it will appear a few years after 5e. I doubt Monte will do it. He can make more money as a lone gun.

Personally, I prefer an edition with a long run, and a quantum leap forward in the next ed. It's more time exploring the full potential of the game - RPGs have a /lot/ of potential depth - I've rarely found myself picking up a new ed without regretting characters or campaigns I never got to try under the old one (picking up 3.0 being an exception that leaps to mind). And, it's more reason to move on and adopt the new instead of sticking with the old.

I like longer runs too. I'd like 10 year runs anyway. I'd also like a game that was more additive than rewrite. I don't mind streamlining and/or tweaks for improved gameplay but I don't want the whole game fundamentally changed.

I don't believe it is. Though 'a matter of taste,' may seem 'arbitrary,' it's really more personal for instance. My hackles just go up when a stated rationale includes some invalid or factually questionable elements. I think most of us go through life without really /examining/ our likes and dislikes, so even when we try to explain them, we end up rationalizing rather than elucidating. That's one thing about discussions like this: they can be used to refine arguments for or against something, or to better understand how you came to be on the side you're arguing for, and thus whether you really want to stay there.

(Man, I'm getting overly philosophical, here.)

I like us getting philosophical. It's a lot more interesting than us shooting at each other with the snark guns.

The issue I have with saying it's personal preference is this. A lot of people when they read about dissociative mechanics suddenly see why they have the issue. Until then they just felt like the game didn't resonate with them. When they read those words it's like a lightbulb flashing on. Yes thats it! Someone finally put their finger on it. After reading about it they suddenly start seeing various parts of games in different ways. I don't think that this collective understanding is unique to individuals. So there is something that triggers this response in various people the world over who've never met each other. I raised the issue like I said entirely independently before realizing that others had came before me. When I read their stuff I said "They get what I'm saying".

I really believe if you put us all in separate rooms and gave us tests we'd give the same answers. A,B,C are dissociative and X,Y,Z are not. So there is some internal mental process where we identify a dissociative mechanic. No one that I know of who has issues with the mechanic think that hit points are dissociative. It is only those who don't recognize the specifics of dissociative mechanics that try to argue that they are equivalent to martial dailies. Now do I think it may be the way we are wired both nurture and nature? Yes. In some cases thats it. In others I think it is a person's approach to the game in general but I'm not putting that on everyone.

Here is how a lot of us feel. It's like watching a black and white movie that has one object in color. We keep pointing out that the one color thing is distracting. A color blind person keeps saying it's all black and white. That the thing I'm saying is a particular color is in fact the same color as this thing over here that I in fact see as black. So if you can imagine this happening now you know my frustration.

I would hope we could get to the point where people could just say - hey I don't have a problem with dissociative mechanics. I realize you do and where possible if it makes not a bit of difference lets go without them. Where it does lets modularize. But when people keep denying their existence as if by denial all those thousands of people who do think they exist will suddenly just close their eyes and agree. They aren't going to do that. It bothers them so it matters TO THEM. (for emphasis I don't mean to yell here).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I missed or forgot you'd made your comment in the context of the story hour.

There's some really good stuff there, check it out sometime.

I agree we are fascinated by magic and the magical. Gandalf is by far the most interesting character for me in LOTR and thats in a world where magic is perhaps not as dominant as in D&D.

That's not what either of us were talking about, though (and, really, Gandalf is the equivalent of an NPC, a source of exposition and the occassional Deus ex Machichina, not a protagonist).

What we were talking about was the relative desireability of fighters vs casters. I found one example (and it's not the only one) of a successful all-caster campaign in 3.x, if, indeed, non-casters are at not great disadvantage in that edition, then it shouldn't be any harder for you to find an existing example of an equally successful all-martial campaign.

I like longer runs too. I'd like 10 year runs anyway. I'd also like a game that was more additive than rewrite.

I figure 'additive' is what we get /during/ a run. The core comes out, supplements add to it until it collapses under it's won weight. I'd like a long run for every ed like the one 1e had: over 10 years, and not that much over 10 books. (MM, PH, DMG, FF, Dieties&Demigods, UA, WSG, DSG, MM2, OA - am I forgetting anything?). A real quality hardcover book a year, rather than a dashed out book a month. I'm sure that's impossible from a business perspective, though.

I don't mind streamlining and/or tweaks for improved gameplay but I don't want the whole game fundamentally changed.

If you're not going to make fundamental changes with a new ed, when would you make them? I don't think D&D has ever been so perfect that there wasn't some very real potential for fundamental change to improve it.

The issue I have with saying it's personal preference is this. A lot of people when they read about dissociative mechanics suddenly see why they have the issue. Until then they just felt like the game didn't resonate with them.

A ready-made rationalization is a thing of beauty. And, like I've said twice to no avail, there's an underlying real mechanical distinction that's being talked around. The whole 'dissociative' pitch, is just a very snarkily-intellectual way of saying you don't like that difference, though. Another variation on "it's not really an RPG." Or your own Monopoly reference, where you basically say anyone who prefers 4e isn't a real gamer, with just the commitment to D&D that a kid playing Monopoly has. On the other side, there's the conclusion that anyone wanting Vancian is just on a power-trip with their god-wizard, or that Pathfinder is exactly 3.5, or whatever.

Ad Hominems and Straw Men all around, that's the edition war. Nothing for the winners nor the losers to be too proud of.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

<snip Hero info and effect's based thinking stuff

I can agree. Hero is my main system, but I play D&D on weekends in solo games with the wife. The first thing I noticed about 4E when I played it when it first came out was that it could have been very effects based. Monks are my favorite class - so we just grabbed ranger, used ranger powers, had a weapon called "Martial arts" and came up with justification for AC based on dodging.

All the Special Effects were refluffed to Ch'i. Viola Monk right away - one house rule, and some flavor changes. Did the same in 3rd - a Monk/Sorcerer - all the sorcerer spells were defined as Ch'i energy. A fireball became a "Shu-do-ken." Burning hands was "Yoga Flame"

And I understand that there are many who don't approach things that way.