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

[Ahnehnois]

So they are meant to be used as written, unless they become a problem?

Pretty much. It's a game. If you're not having fun, you're doing something wrong.

I just don't agree with that kind of philosophy, at least not to such a big extent. It almost feels as if the designers would be saying, "we'll make something, throw it at the players to buy, and they can fix it if it's broken." I'd rather play a system that doesn't need as much fixing, it's a lot less work for me to start having fun!

Sounds nice. The problem is that rpgs are open-ended and have a diverse group of players, such that one person's fixed is another person's broken.

I find 3e far more balanced than 2e or 4e, and 3e and PF to be very playable out of the box. Of course that's just me saying that, but the overall marketplace status would suggest that I'm not the only one that feels that way.

 

[pemerton]

Isn't that just changing the hook?

...err...Right. That's the point. The games we were talking about have mechanisms for the game to focus on the PC's interests.

What Ratskinner said.

Here is an example of what I mean. One of the players in my game has, as part of his PC's backstory, that his PC was a failed recruit in the dwarven militia. The first encounter after the PCs had achieved paragon tier - and the PC in question had taken the Warpriest paragon path - was with a dwarven militia patrol, which included former comrades of that PC, who used to mock him for his ineptitude. After retreating from a hobgoblin assault, the NPC dwarves had received a visitation from an angel of Moradin, who told them that a priest who might help them could be found in the foothills. They proceeded into the foothills, where they encountered the PCs. At first they mocked the dwarven PC, asking where the priest could be found. Eventually he persuaded them that he was the priest whom the angel had told them of. He then went on to take command of the NPCs.

This sort of thing isn't just changing the hook. It's the players "hooking" the GM, rather than vice versa - the GM framing scenes in accordance with the signals sent by the players, rather than the players adjusting their PCs to fit the signals sent by the GM.

A pithy expression of this idea is found in the Burning Wheel rulebooks, discussing player-purchased Relationships for their PCs (BW Gold, p 377):

If one of your relationships is your wife in the village, the GM is supposed to use this to create trouble in play. If you're hunting a vampyr, of course it's your wife who is his victim!​

D&D doesn't have formal mechanics for building a PC's backstory like this, but it is pretty easy to do it informally, and to have the GM set up situations that hook onto that backstory in something like the same way a Burning Wheel GM does.

 

[Hussar]

It's intended for use, but also intended for interpretation. In the unlikely event that a character overpowers the others consistently, the DM is given broad authority to fix that by any means necessary. If the game is not fun, everyone at the table is empowered to change things.

I'd quibble pretty strongly wit hthe idea that it's unlikely.

But then, in this or the other thread Ahn, you stated that your players don't play core casters, don't use item creation feats, don't buy magic items and don't have significant down time.

So, at least in your games, I can totally see why you don't have major problems. The problematic classes aren't present and your playstyle discourages the rest. Add in the fact that you tend to use one or two big encounters, rather than a large number of smaller encounters and you're pretty much playing right into the dead center of sweet spot for 3e.

However, when you start talking about how widespread this is, I really think you're looking at things simply from the bias of your own game.

Think about it this way. If I sat at your table, played a conjurer wizard with item creation feats, I'd wreck your game. It's plain and simple. I'm not taking any unbalanced stuff, core only, and I'm not deliberately trying to break anything. But, simply through the options that are available to me, I'm going to do very bad things to your game.

Now, is that my fault or the system's fault? Me? I blame the system. The system should not be so fragile that choosing default options (conjurer wizard with bonus feats taking item creation feats is hardly outside of default) breaks the game.

So, no, I do not have the same experience as you. 3e is most certainly not the best balanced system IME. AIR, you haven't actually played earlier editions have you?

 

[Ahnehnois]

But then, in this or the other thread Ahn, you stated that your players don't play core casters, don't use item creation feats, don't buy magic items and don't have significant down time.
...
So, at least in your games, I can totally see why you don't have major problems. The problematic classes aren't present and your playstyle discourages the rest.

I never said they don't play core casters; wizards are a bit uncommon but I've had quite a few druids (generally considered the most powerful class) and some clerics and sorcerers as well. And yet no CODzillas.

Add in the fact that you tend to use one or two big encounters, rather than a large number of smaller encounters and you're pretty much playing right into the dead center of sweet spot for 3e.

That's a bit more interesting.

First off, the leveling guidelines make it nonsensical for people to face multiple encounters quickly (at one battle a month even a half-orc passes level 20 before reaching retirement age). In world considerations also make this nonsensical in most cases.

Second, the by the book definition of a challenging encounter (four characters against one of equal level) is not very challenging; the book estimates that it should only use 20% of your replenishable resources and even that seems rather excessive. In other words, facing multiple encounters in a day isn't that different than facing one unless you really push the number or the difficulty.

Third, playing a smaller number of stronger encounters (what I do) is a playstyle that actually inherently favors spellcasters because they don't generally have to worry about conserving spells (though it devalues healing).

So when people talk about facing repeated encounters challenging enough to place strain on their available daily spells, I'd say that's pretty atypical and also should be pushing the spellcasters and such, not making them more effective.

However, when you start talking about how widespread this is, I really think you're looking at things simply from the bias of your own game.

I (as everyone) am pretty oriented around my own game. However, when you start talking about how widespread 3.X era spellcasters and other characters are right now (4 years after the 4e release), I think I'm speaking for people other than myself as well. You don't hear those complaints from the PF player base despite its size and diversity and the fact that the rules do very little to address them. A significant number actually tried 4e's "fixes" and went back to the 3e mentality. Why do you think that is? Do they enjoy having casters dominate their games? Do they enforce their own fixes? Or do they simply not have any dealbreaker level problems with the basic play experience that system provides?

Think about it this way. If I sat at your table, played a conjurer wizard with item creation feats, I'd wreck your game. It's plain and simple. I'm not taking any unbalanced stuff, core only, and I'm not deliberately trying to break anything. But, simply through the options that are available to me, I'm going to do very bad things to your game.

No, you wouldn't.

No one has yet, even using some very unbalanced non-core rules, despite my starting from scratch as a DM and running a variety of different types of game with dozens of wildly different players over the years. I'm not sure why you think your impact would be so unintentionally disruptive.

I do think that it would be a very informative experience for some of the players who talk about 3e as if the whole game was "unbalanced" or who use some of the general edition warring criticisms (healbot, 15 MAD, linear/quadratic, etc.) to play in one of my games, or to play in other games in general. Unfortunately, I'm not available to run anything more than I already do.

Now, is that my fault or the system's fault? Me? I blame the system. The system should not be so fragile that choosing default options (conjurer wizard with bonus feats taking item creation feats is hardly outside of default) breaks the game.

Well it shouldn't. And it doesn't.

So, no, I do not have the same experience as you. 3e is most certainly not the best balanced system IME. AIR, you haven't actually played earlier editions have you?

Is 3e the best balanced system ever created? No. It's good enough though. I do consider it the best balanced version of D&D (followed by 2e, and would probably be followed by the early iterations of D&D if I had any knowledge of them).

I did play 2e for a couple of years before 3e came out; the earlier versions of D&D that one hears about on these boards are well before my time. We had the same conversation about switching from 2e to 3e that we had about switching from 3e to 4e (albeit with a different outcome). We did dungeon crawls and even one published adventure. I have some very anachronistic experiences. Good times though.

I find 2e to be outdated, confusing, and somewhat unbalanced, but an entirely enjoyable and viable game that I would be happy to run. IME 3e is a very natural evolution of 2e that addresses most of its problems, while still being well short of perfect (and I would welcome a new rpg that addressed 3e's problems in the same way; it's certainly time).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I never said they don't play core casters; wizards are a bit uncommon but I've had quite a few druids (generally considered the most powerful class) and some clerics and sorcerers as well. And yet no CODzillas.

The only one of the big three I find obviously broken is the Druid. Mostly because the Polymorph rules are horribly broken. And because they have a companion that's worth about half a fighter on its own.

The Cleric breaks only if you try (or use those idiotic Metamagic Item Rods that should never have been written, and certainly not put into 3.5 or PF core). And the ways to intentionally break a cleric are mostly obvious things that shouldn't be done - see Persistent Spell.

The wizard on the other hand requires a perceptual shift to break before the early teens. "The key to strategy is not defeating the enemy but rendering them irrelevant". If the wizard player likes elegance and outthinking the enemy, the wizard is broken. If they want to go straight forward on a Big Fantasy Quest then they are fine.

You don't hear those complaints from the PF player base despite its size and diversity and the fact that the rules do very little to address them. A significant number actually tried 4e's "fixes" and went back to the 3e mentality. Why do you think that is? Do they enjoy having casters dominate their games? Do they enforce their own fixes? Or do they simply not have any dealbreaker level problems with the basic play experience that system provides?

1: A lot don't play Pathfinder. Or, like me, find that they'd be unable to play a wizard or Summoner in Pathfinder. (Seriously. I looked at a concept for a Summoner and ended up with something that could out-scout the rogue, probably out-fight the fighter, and out-utility cast the sorceror).

2: They do find it in PF organised play. They think it should be that way.

3: It tends to show up past level 6.

I do think that it would be a very informative experience for some of the players who talk about 3e as if the whole game was "unbalanced" or who use some of the general edition warring criticisms (healbot, 15 MAD, linear/quadratic, etc.) to play in one of my games, or to play in other games in general. Unfortunately, I'm not available to run anything more than I already do.

I also think it would be very informative. To demonstrate to you what a caster in skilled hands can do. And as for healbot, that isn't a criticism of 3e. 3e ended the healbot by providing the Wand of CLW.

Is 3e the best balanced system ever created? No. It's good enough though. I do consider it the best balanced version of D&D (followed by 2e, and would probably be followed by the early iterations of D&D if I had any knowledge of them).

Interesting. In my opinion, you have the balance almost precisely backwards. Best two balanced games are 4e and oD&D. Followed by 1e with weapon specialisation from UA. (And ignoring the monk). 2e was the delightful edition that gave us The Complete Book of Elves, and Skills and Powers (most. unbalanced. book. ever). It seriously boosted the wizard with specialisation and giving it the best options from the wizard and illusionist classes. And the rogue, already the weakest class, fell much further behind.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The only one of the big three I find obviously broken is the Druid. Mostly because the Polymorph rules are horribly broken. And because they have a companion that's worth about half a fighter on its own.

The polymorph rules are indeed problematic; and the concept of animal companions and the leadership feat and similar rules that go beyond your character are also problematic. Both are fixable, and neither are problems with the druid class. Nor are they necessarily gamebreaking, even in their worst form.

The Cleric breaks only if you try (or use those idiotic Metamagic Item Rods that should never have been written, and certainly not put into 3.5 or PF core). And the ways to intentionally break a cleric are mostly obvious things that shouldn't be done - see Persistent Spell.

Well, I'd say just about anything is broken only if you try, but okay.

The wizard on the other hand requires a perceptual shift to break before the early teens. "The key to strategy is not defeating the enemy but rendering them irrelevant". If the wizard player likes elegance and outthinking the enemy, the wizard is broken. If they want to go straight forward on a Big Fantasy Quest then they are fine.

I'll agree that the generalist wizard is more powerful than the evoker. Still seems fine to me though.

1: A lot don't play Pathfinder. Or, like me, find that they'd be unable to play a wizard or Summoner in Pathfinder. (Seriously. I looked at a concept for a Summoner and ended up with something that could out-scout the rogue, probably out-fight the fighter, and out-utility cast the sorceror).

If you're asking me to defend the summoner, I don't use it and I'm aware that even the PF designers consider it one of their worse additions to the game, so I won't.

2: They do find it in PF organised play. They think it should be that way.

Organized play is kind of a separate issue; there are a lot of issues that pop up there that don't seem to be representative of people's home games.

3: It tends to show up past level 6.

What percentage of games go past level 6? Any edition? Even before accounting for E6? Not that I think all games past 6 are broken, but that's already a niche.

I also think it would be very informative. To demonstrate to you what a caster in skilled hands can do.

Are you suggesting that me and my players are not skilled? Or that anyone on these boards is more so? Based on your posts, I'm skeptical of the latter. I've seen plenty of casters played well.

Interesting. In my opinion, you have the balance almost precisely backwards.

In my opinion, you have the balance almost precisely backwards.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, I'd say just about anything is broken only if you try, but okay.

And I'd say if you ain't trying in character you ain't roleplaying anything but a very niche character.

If you're asking me to defend the summoner, I don't use it and I'm aware that even the PF designers consider it one of their worse additions to the game, so I won't.

Fair enough. I await the errata to turn it into something good.

What percentage of games go past level 6? Any edition? Even before accounting for E6? Not that I think all games past 6 are broken, but that's already a niche.

In my experience of 4e, the only campaigns I've played that didn't go past level 6 either didn't make it past level 1 or are still ongoing. The sole exceptions being Encounters.

As for it being a niche, with only incredibly rare exceptions the lowest level you could enter a Prestige class at was Level 6. (Yes, you in theory could enter the Survivor at level 2 - but this is very much an exception. The lowest I can think of is the Master Inquisitive at level 4). So given that and that you only have three levels of spells in play you're telling me that the overwhelming volume of rules material produced for D&D 3.X was produced for a small niche.

 

[Ahnehnois]

And I'd say if you ain't trying in character you ain't roleplaying anything but a very niche character.

Sure. With the caveat that your character typically wants his party to be good rather than just himself, and that your character typically doesn't make the assumptions that lead to brokenness.

So given that and that you only have three levels of spells in play you're telling me that the overwhelming volume of rules material produced for D&D 3.X was produced for a small niche.

Pretty much.

 

[Magil]

Sure. With the caveat that your character typically wants his party to be good rather than just himself, and that your character typically doesn't make the assumptions that lead to brokenness.

There are a few problems here:

1) A wizard who wants his party to be good will generally pick party-friendly spells that disable enemies rather than try to kill them. This is the most broken wizard build, at low-to-mid levels.

2) From an in-universe standpoint, if a spellcaster was involved in combat in the past, before s/he had an adventuring party, then s/he probably picked spells that would help him/her survive. It's perfectly reasonable to have a character that has spells that ensure s/he is self-reliant, because (at least in my experience) a lot of adventurers are in fact loners before they join up. This is not every case, but it's common enough.

I also still firmly believe that it's pretty easy to break the 3.x system without trying to be broken (I certainly wasn't trying to break the system when I built my summoner druid, I just happen to like minion-based builds, it's not my fault they're broken in 3rd edition), but I suppose your experience tells you otherwise.

 

[Ahnehnois]

1) A wizard who wants his party to be good will generally pick party-friendly spells that disable enemies rather than try to kill them. This is the most broken wizard build, at low-to-mid levels.

??? It's not broken if it's working and everyone's having fun.

I also still firmly believe that it's pretty easy to break the 3.x system without trying to be broken (I certainly wasn't trying to break the system when I built my summoner druid, I just happen to like minion-based builds, it's not my fault they're broken in 3rd edition), but I suppose your experience tells you otherwise.

Well anything's possible. The question isn't whether it's possible. The question is whether it's universal.