D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[Storminator]

I just stepped into my friends' Pathfinder game. I've never played Pathfinder (tho years of 3.x), so I made a 9th level human fighter. I imagined I wouldn't be too effective, but for me it's a one shot and I didn't want to get too fancy.

One of our combat rounds, everyone hit. Damages from various PCs were 4, 16, 39 (me), and 92. The guy that did 16 chucked his dice on the table and said "what am I even doing here?"

Where players are no longer having fun is where imbalance is a problem.

PS

 

[Ahnehnois]

I just stepped into my friends' Pathfinder game. I've never played Pathfinder (tho years of 3.x), so I made a 9th level human fighter. I imagined I wouldn't be too effective, but for me it's a one shot and I didn't want to get too fancy.

One of our combat rounds, everyone hit. Damages from various PCs were 4, 16, 39 (me), and 92. The guy that did 16 chucked his dice on the table and said "what am I even doing here?"

Where players are no longer having fun is where imbalance is a problem.

PS

I remember a similar situation that occurred where one PC was invincible and did damage an order of magnitude higher than everyone else, another character did solid damage most of the time, and the others did very little. Balance problem, yes.

The superpowered character was a paladin, and the second fiddle was a rogue. The other characters, including a wizard, were underpowered. Should I conclude that in the rules themselves, the paladin is grossly overpowered, the rogue is kind of overpowered, and the wizard is worthless? And then revise on that basis?

Of course not. Even in those rare cases where balance issues pop up, it's usually table-specific and on the DM to deal with it.

 

[Jacob Marley]

+/- 3 is when it starts to become substantial, while +/- 5 is the max for standard 3E.

And yes, you can resort to spells - potions being drinkable spells - because spellcasting is the correct choice in D&D. However, keep in mind that a Potion of Greater Magic Weapon +5 is 3,000 gp, so it can add up at higher levels unless you want to whiff constantly.

First, at the levels where Greater Magic Weapon +5 becomes "necessary" (17-20), 3,000gp is also a fraction of your expected wealth gain, and an even smaller fraction of your average treasure per character from encounters (see DMG page 54). Second, a magic weapon (or lack thereof) is not the primary cause for whiffing on a secondary method of attack - the linear stat modifier progression is. 3.x incentivizes a player to build up their primary stat (4e does this as well to somewhat different results). A fighter who starts with an 18 Str will likely end with ~29 Str (+5 from leveling up, +6 for stat boosting item) for a +9 to-hit from their ability modifier. That same fighter who starts with a 12 Dex is likely to end with a 12 Dex. That's where the problem is, not on the magic item. For 50-3,000gp I can solve the magic item issue.

This is one area where I prefer 1e's distribution; the adjustments and modifiers are considerably flatter. A fighter with an 18 Str and 12 Dex is likely to remain an 18 Str and 12 Dex. The difference in to-hit will remain +1 or +2 with +3 occurring 1% of the time. The cost to switch between melee and ranged is fairly low.

Being generally ineffective occurs when you have a themed adventure or campaign. Ravenloft is a terrible place to be a rogue, in particular.

This much I agree with. (Though I'd change "terrible" to "challenging.")

 

[Incenjucar]

I remember a similar situation that occurred where one PC was invincible and did damage an order of magnitude higher than everyone else, another character did solid damage most of the time, and the others did very little. Balance problem, yes.

The superpowered character was a paladin, and the second fiddle was a rogue. The other characters, including a wizard, were underpowered. Should I conclude that in the rules themselves, the paladin is grossly overpowered, the rogue is kind of overpowered, and the wizard is worthless? And then revise on that basis?

Of course not. Even in those rare cases where balance issues pop up, it's usually table-specific and on the DM to deal with it.

I would absolutely revise any system that allows for an order-of-magnitude difference between characters of the same level. D&D has a few too many lingering wargame "rock/paper/scissors" elements that are now more associated with Starcraft. A little give here and there is fine, since balance is always situational, but a competent designer can cut down on the degree to which this occurs.

That happens to everyone regardless of class or system.

I've seen people miss four or five times in a row. Crap happens.

It does! And it's part of why a lot of people hate the d20 system. We gain nothing by making it even worse. Only hitting on a 6 for an entire encounter, only to do piddly damage compared to what you're used to if you do hit, and losing all of your effectiveness, can feel pretty lame. Misses are like deaths in the game - they should be there to keep the tension going, not to remove a player from the game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would absolutely revise any system that allows for an order-of-magnitude difference between characters of the same level.

Wait, "allows"? You mean that it should not be possible for players with different skill levels or different intentions to produce characters of radically different levels of combat (or overall) effectiveness?

I don't know where that postulate comes from but I certainly reject it.

 

[Dausuul]

Wait, "allows"? You mean that it should not be possible for players with different skill levels or different intentions to produce characters of radically different levels of combat (or overall) effectiveness?

I don't know where that postulate comes from but I certainly reject it.

If you deliberately set out to make a character who can't fight, fine. But otherwise, I'm with Incenjucar; an order of magnitude difference is absurd.

 

[Storminator]

If you deliberately set out to make a character who can't fight, fine. But otherwise, I'm with Incenjucar; an order of magnitude difference is absurd.

Certainly effort and design goal should make a difference. Something like 10% is perfectly reasonable.

PS

 

[Dausuul]

Certainly effort and design goal should make a difference. Something like 10% is perfectly reasonable.

PS

I would go higher than 10%. I'd say a factor of 2 is a decent maximum, as between a focused, highly optimized combat monster and a non-optimized skill monkey type. (However, most of that should be due to the combat monster being focused on combat and the skill monkey being focused elsewhere. System mastery should not produce more than a 10-15% boost. I want to see rewards for player skill at the table, not during chargen.)

This assumes, of course, that the skill monkey's player is not actively trying to make a character who is ineffective in combat. You can always grab a weapon you're not proficient with, dump your main attack stat, et cetera, and be as ineffective as you like.

 

[Incenjucar]

Wait, "allows"? You mean that it should not be possible for players with different skill levels or different intentions to produce characters of radically different levels of combat (or overall) effectiveness?

I don't know where that postulate comes from but I certainly reject it.

I do not agree with Monte Cook's doctrine of filling the game with traps and penalties for not scouring the internet for cookie cutter builds. That sort of enforced penalty for not powergaming is for MMOs, and frankly I don't feel it belongs there, either. I feel that an RPG should keep characters relatively even so long as they don't go out of their way to make themselves useless so that we can tell more stories about cool concepts instead of ones with the most functionality. Keeping characters even also makes the adventure designer and DM's job significantly easier.

Besides that, the skill of a player is determined by their ability to adapt to the situation, not their ability to search a forum for a broken build.

 

[The Human Target]

So I got Edge of the Empire for Christmas, and want to start up a campaign in the new year.

And man, while I like a lot of what the game offers, there are some hugely swingy and unbalanced things in the game. Especially in terms of individual class balance.

Its pretty shocking after years and years of 4e.

DMing mechanically is going to be much harder on me.