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

[Lanefan]

Lanefan, I'd argue that your first example isn't actually balanced. The first character is totally dominating one encounter, and is riding the pines in two of them. I'm assuming that 1 out of 5 is pretty much the equivalent of throwing daggers at giants - sure, you did damage, but, the contribution did not really affect the outcome of the situation at all.

I do not want to see a return to this sort of "balance" where we swing so far between useful and riding the pines. Your first example actually looks like a 3e rogue, where the last two encounters are ones against which the rogue's sneak attack doesn't work. Sure, he had that one really good encounter, but, the rest of the time he's either average or well below average.

Yeah, don't get me started on 3e Rogues...

Sure, 3's across the board isn't going to happen either. But, I would hope that everyone at the table is a 2-4 in every encounter with specific reasons for a 1 or a 5 (PC got killed/incapacitated in the surprise round would be a good example of a 1 PC nails several crits in a row for a 5).

When I posted that I was kind of ignoring random events like your examples, and trying to go by averages. (your examples would equate to a 0 or a 6)

So long as everyone is in the same ballpark, I'm pretty content. Barring some very specific circumstances, characters should never be 1's or 5's.

Where I don't mind it so much, on both a small and large scale.

If I'm playing an Illusionist (in 1e) and we meet a bunch of undead, I'm pretty useless. I'll do what I can, but I'm really not much help...and that's fine, as I'm aware going in that illusions are pointless against undead and that times like this are gonna happen. (I'm a 1)

Conversely, the next encounter might be against a bunch of dumb Ogres. Here, I just go off - they're almost certainly going to believe anything I can dream up, thus I get my chance to go to town and the warrior types can mostly take a breather. (I'm a 5)

Next up might be another wave of Ogres looking for the first lot. I've used up my best spells but I've still got some others left, so I have to co-ordinate with the warriors what to do and then everyone just swarms in. (I'm a 3)

These examples are on the encounter scale. I don't mind if they get jumped up even to the adventure scale (adventure 1 has foes that are almost all undead, adventure 2 is a raid against a village of Ogres, etc.) as long as there's enough variance in the long run to give everyone a chance to do their thing.

A Fighter, on the other hand, rarely if ever is a 5 and rarely if ever is a 1 - no matter what happens, she can always swing her sword at something and slowly chop it down. Doesn't matter whether the wizard's on a 5 encounter or a 1, she's still got that sword and she's still reliably clobberin' away.

Fighters in this example are probably the most stable of all classes; and yeah, even if the wizard blows herself out every morning and makes the party stop for the day you've (very likely) still done your bit in the one battle you had that day. And sometimes you've just gotta haul the wizard up by the scruff of his scrawny little neck and tell him "we're not stopping again just because a' you - now get in line!"

Lanefan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A simple balance model:

Every character has 4 awesome points per arbitrary time chunk.
Character 1 can spend only 1 awesome points per scene/encounter.
Character 2 can spend up to 3 awesome points per scene/encounter.

Any such system will be unbalanced if over that time chunk, there are less than 4 scenes/encounters. (It becomes especially so if the party, and more so if Character 2, can affect or decide the number of encounters- Rope Trick, Teleport, Mordekainen's Magnificant Mansion, Word of Recall).
If characters don't even get the same number of awesome points, well, you start imbalanced and there isn't anything you can do about it. (You may think that just adding more scenes could help, but keep in mind thatawesome points are an abstract resource - and doesn't just include spells or powers but also hit points / surges / hit dice.)

If the time chunk where to be defined by the number of scenes/encounters instead being set independent of that, then you could achieve balance into the game.
So, if you were playing 3E, instead of saying "8 hours of rest recover your spells and hit points", you say "after 5 combats, you recover your spells and hit points".
Or you try to force people to always have your 4 scenes, but how to do that?

Furthermore:
The difficulty of a scene could be based on how many awesome points you expect to be needed. This can lead to perceived imbalance when a scene requires more awesom epoints than another - that's where Character 2 can shine and blow his load of 3 points. But if he still has to go through more 2 more scenes, then Character 1 gets to shine. Whether this will be entirely satisfying, I don't know. Does a spotlight involving a high threat encounter feel as well as a spotlight involving a low threat encounter (where another character is "helpless"),

 

[pemerton]

The difficulty of a scene could be based on how many awesome points you expect to be needed. This can lead to perceived imbalance when a scene requires more awesom epoints than another - that's where Character 2 can shine and blow his load of 3 points. But if he still has to go through more 2 more scenes, then Character 1 gets to shine. Whether this will be entirely satisfying, I don't know. Does a spotlight involving a high threat encounter feel as well as a spotlight involving a low threat encounter (where another character is "helpless")

My answer to your last question is "no", but that might be a preference peculiar to me.

 

[Emerikol]

My answer to your last question is "no", but that might be a preference peculiar to me.

For me, it's definitely not a requirement. But I do think some classes in 3e could be improved combat-wise. The fighter though is not one of them. He is plenty good in my opinion. The rogue though is a bit weak. Like the ranger or paladin, I've always felt like the rogue should be a subclass of fighter.

 

[Victim]

Yeah, don't get me started on 3e Rogues...
When I posted that I was kind of ignoring random events like your examples, and trying to go by averages. (your examples would equate to a 0 or a 6)
Where I don't mind it so much, on both a small and large scale.

A Fighter, on the other hand, rarely if ever is a 5 and rarely if ever is a 1 - no matter what happens, she can always swing her sword at something and slowly chop it down. Doesn't matter whether the wizard's on a 5 encounter or a 1, she's still got that sword and she's still reliably clobberin' away.

Fighters in this example are probably the most stable of all classes; and yeah, even if the wizard blows herself out every morning and makes the party stop for the day you've (very likely) still done your bit in the one battle you had that day. And sometimes you've just gotta haul the wizard up by the scruff of his scrawny little neck and tell him "we're not stopping again just because a' you - now get in line!"

Lanefan

Especially in 3.x, I can't really say that the Fighter has been the most stable of classes. When their bad saves aren't being targeted, mobility can be a problem. It's hard to swing your sword at something flying (and activating an item to fly was often a significant chunk of your actions in battle) or far away. And many monsters or spell effects have auras or close in nastiness that discourage melee. For instance, in a Pathfinder game, we have an alchemist who loves to throw stinking cloud or disease bombs, so it's hard to melee enemies with all the AoE bad zones going around.

So while the fighter generally isn't getting 4 or 5 on your scale, I don't really think they have any special protection against low contribution. Something like the 3e Warlock, OTOH, has a pretty consistent set of class features - they have pretty reliable damage, can usually deliver it safely. Their best nova effects come from items.

2e and 4e are a bit better there, because it's easier to have effective melee and ranged attacks on a fighter.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For me, it's definitely not a requirement. But I do think some classes in 3e could be improved combat-wise. The fighter though is not one of them. He is plenty good in my opinion. The rogue though is a bit weak. Like the ranger or paladin, I've always felt like the rogue should be a subclass of fighter.

The fighter absolutely is one of them. Literally every single non-caster in 3.X has problems matching a well-played Bard overall (not that most bards were well played). And if you are called a Fighter and are absolutely terrible out of combat (seriously, 2+Int Modifier skills) then you damn well should be the best at fighting.

GiantITP at one point had a series of duels. 20th level fighter vs 13th level wizard with minimal prebuffing. The duels ended up about even - and the only reason the fighter was in the fight at all was that he had a ridiculous amount of money to spend on items; he wasn't appreciably different from a 20th level warrior with the same money. If a 20th level fighter can't curb stomp a wizard seven levels below him, and with many of the wizard's advantages (like intelligence gathering) neutralised then he needs a boost.

 

[shadowmane]

(Note: I did not read all 46 pages of this thread. I simply read the first page and composed this)

This whole idea of balance complicates the game way too much. If you really want balance in a game that has 5-6 encounters in a 6-8 hour game, then you design each encounter to bring one or more of the characters to the forefront. Thieves shine when there is some trap or treasure chest to take care of, or some creature to slip past or behind to get a back-stab. For the magic user, you have the mage vs mage duel, or a monster that only magic can defeat. For the fighter, you throw mooks out there for him to crush. For the cleric, you create situations that challenge their faith, while also challenging their skills. You create balance not with the rules, but by designing your encounters with your players' characters in mind. Every encounter is going to have a star. Every encounter is going to have supporting roles. And every encounter is going to have bystanders. That's by design.

I think we need to keep this in mind, and tweak modules and create dungeons and encounters that challenge the players (and especially their characters) we have at our table. Any other kind of balance is over-rated and useless.

I like the idea of different classes having different level progression ala Original and Classic D&D. Same thing with races. It gives them a certain flavor. They progress at different speeds. Instead of Wizards levelling up according to character level rules, simply have them level up by MU level, with special rules for things they gain at certain XP numbers instead of levels. Fighters would follow a different progression, allowing for more martial stuff being added in. It gives the game a flavor that I'd love to see regained.

 

[Emerikol]

The fighter absolutely is one of them. Literally every single non-caster in 3.X has problems matching a well-played Bard overall (not that most bards were well played). And if you are called a Fighter and are absolutely terrible out of combat (seriously, 2+Int Modifier skills) then you damn well should be the best at fighting.

GiantITP at one point had a series of duels. 20th level fighter vs 13th level wizard with minimal prebuffing. The duels ended up about even - and the only reason the fighter was in the fight at all was that he had a ridiculous amount of money to spend on items; he wasn't appreciably different from a 20th level warrior with the same money. If a 20th level fighter can't curb stomp a wizard seven levels below him, and with many of the wizard's advantages (like intelligence gathering) neutralised then he needs a boost.

I don't disagree that if you are designing a fighter for pvp that you need to be an excellent min/maxer to achieve parity. I disagree though that it can't be done. But who cares? When has pvp ever been the goal of classes in D&D?

I think spotlight and usefulness are far better measures. Our fighters if anything were hogs of the spotlight. They did such high levels of damage (and if you are not then learn how to build a fighter I'd say) over and over. Sure a wizard might get off a high damage spell here and there. But the fighter would then finish off the BBEG. The fighter would also hack through tons of enemies while the wizard didn't do much. I actually had to "recruit" wizards for my game. I never had an issue getting fighters.

I like balanced groups by the way and don't mind that as a presumptive requirement. So if everyone wanted to be a wizard or cleric then I'd be recruiting other classes to go with them. That was not the case. In fact cleric would have gone wanting if not for one guy who loves clerics and let me assure you he chose for flavor reasons and not mechanics. He played clerics all the way from 1e.

 

[Magil]

In regards to the OP's question: if they want me to invest in the game, and want people like me to invest in the game, then balance should be one of the primary design goals. Just because it is impossible to achieve perfect balance does not mean it should not receive heavy attention. Keeping the game fun and making sure every character has a chance to contribute equally to the adventure (without forcing the DM to go to great lengths to make it possible) should be heavily prioritized. I do not want a repeat of this.

 

[shadowmane]

In regards to the OP's question: if they want me to invest in the game, and want people like me to invest in the game, then balance should be one of the primary design goals. Just because it is impossible to achieve perfect balance does not mean it should not receive heavy attention. Keeping the game fun and making sure every character has a chance to contribute equally to the adventure (without forcing the DM to go to great lengths to make it possible) should be heavily prioritized. I do not want a repeat of this.

See my post above.

It is the job of the DM to bring balance by knowing the characters who are in his game. Its not the job of the rules to bring that balance.