D&D 5E What does balance mean to you?

[outsider]

In a game with multiple options(class/race/feats/whatever), one of the options will always be the best option.

I consider a game balanced as long as the best option doesn't break the game(ie. it causes the mechanics to function in very unintended ways, or causes the mechanics to operate in a way that isn't fun), and as long as the best option isn't so far ahead that the rest of the options look terrible(ideally they wouldn't be too far behind, and would have situational uses/versatility that would temporarily put them ahead).

 

[Hussar]

And, really, if we're going to talk about balance in 5e, I'd say they hit the ballpark more often than not. None of the classes are obviously better than the others (with the possible exception of the Ranger which seems something of a whipping boy). While there might be this or that build which seems broken, by and large, you have to go out of your way to unbalance the system.

Which, IMO, is where a system in this day and age should be. There's no excuse for wildly unbalanced mechanics anymore - we've got far too much design experience floating around for that. There's no more "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" approach to gaming. And, communication between gamers is so much easier now. Company A puts out Option X and if it's not up to snuff, it gets shot down pretty quickly.

But, at the end of the day, I do believe balance matters. It's far, far less work to unbalance a balanced system than try to fix an unbalanced one. As I get older, I get less and less inclined to play amateur game designer when I DM. I just want the system to work (most of the time) and get on with playing.

 

[Hussar]

In a game with multiple options(class/race/feats/whatever), one of the options will always be the best option.

I consider a game balanced as long as the best option doesn't break the game(ie. it causes the mechanics to function in very unintended ways, or causes the mechanics to operate in a way that isn't fun), and as long as the best option isn't so far ahead that the rest of the options look terrible(ideally they wouldn't be too far behind, and would have situational uses/versatility that would temporarily put them ahead).

Really?

What is the best race option in 5e D&D?

In 1e, I'd argue that elf was the best option. Multiclassing, massive benefits and the only drawback was the level limits which, in the vast majority of 1e campaigns, never actually came into play. A 1e Elven Cleric/Magic User/Thief was generally only about 1 level behind the rest of the party. So, you were giving up 1 level to gain X levels of MU and Thief, mostly because of the wonky nature of the 1e xp tables. It was certainly pretty high up there anyway.

But in 5e? Is there a "best race/class/feat" combo? I was unaware that 5e had a tiered class system and I'm not seeing a lot of Agony Aunt type complaints about this or that class/race/feat combo. Other than a bit of an issue with Sharpshooter/Great Weapon Master, what feats are an issue?

 

[outsider]

What is the best race option in 5e D&D?

Not familiar enough with 5e to answer this question(and your feat question) perfectly. My theorycrafting suggests Variant Human is probably the overall best race, and Great Weapon Master is probably the best feat. Neither of these appear to cause mechanical issues(and wouldn't cause most people fun issues), and neither of them are so far ahead of their competitors that they are a problem. The balance(for feats and races anyway) in 5e seems pretty good, or at least good enough for me. I'll hold my opinions on class balance til I've spent more time seeing them in play(they have WAY more moving parts than races or feats).

Ultimately the reason I haven't played much 5e has nothing to do with balance. It could be perfectly balanced and I still wouldn't be hyped to play it.

 

[DaveDash]

Your argument would be spot on IF I was indicating something like "heavy armor kicks linguists butt." What I am saying is that WITHIN combat abilities, there are glaring imbalances. Those of us that DO focus on combat are MUCH more apt to catch those. Now there are some major and minor crossover feats that definitely require careful adjudication, but others are more clear. The nihilism comes in when you and others pull out the "based on individual playstyle" flag on virtually every debate. Perhaps individually you are very prudent and selective in your critique - but together you come off as a pack of wolves dismissive of any perceived balance issues. These forums are a very hostile environment when it comes to balance, and it is frustrating to have the pack voraciously descend on critics with these en mass "based on individual playstyle" arguments. To me it shows a lack of empathy and inclusiveness of other perspectives and serves to divide us.

Just give it a rest man, he and others are never going to see our point of view, and that's OK.

There are without a doubt overpowered combinations in 5e that can catch a DM by surprise, and some outright broken stuff (Simulacrums of Simulacrums etc), but let them live in their bubble wrapped land of peace and harmony, because they don't want to come out of it.

For all we know these guys might live in THOM land where the DM has strict control over the story, or their players aren't that tactical/mechanics savvy (Most d&d players aren't in my anecdotal experience). So who knows balance might not even be a "thing" for them. For us though it's important, and hey, 5e mostly does a good job of achieving that. It's the first edition you can play where you can pick almost any class any not "suck" while still retaining a lot of classic flavour of each class.

 

[shoak1]

Just give it a rest man, he and others are never going to see our point of view, and that's OK.

There are without a doubt overpowered combinations in 5e that can catch a DM by surprise, and some outright broken stuff (Simulacrums of Simulacrums etc), but let them live in their bubble wrapped land of peace and harmony, because they don't want to come out of it.

For all we know these guys might live in THOM land where the DM has strict control over the story, or their players aren't that tactical/mechanics savvy (Most d&d players aren't in my anecdotal experience). So who knows balance might not even be a "thing" for them. For us though it's important, and hey, 5e mostly does a good job of achieving that. It's the first edition you can play where you can pick almost any class any not "suck" while still retaining a lot of classic flavour of each class.

Yes indeed. It's just unfortunate that its this painful to get into any discussion about balance as it pertains to anything in 5e. Its totally unlike any other game forums I have been in, usually such discussions are welcome and immediately lead into meaty exchanges. Oh well

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

I think perhaps it comes down to left brain/right brain.

Hmm, might want to update your knowledge base there good sir.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071275

And, really, if we're going to talk about balance in 5e, I'd say they hit the ballpark more often than not. None of the classes are obviously better than the others (with the possible exception of the Ranger which seems something of a whipping boy).

The classes are reasonably tight, but there is a very significant disparity between sub-classes. Moon versus land circles, for instance, or BM versus Champion. There are significant trap choices in feats as well. A well designed and balanced system would make interesting and viable options no matter what you picked as your sub-class or feat. You shouldn't have to weigh up the options. If your concept fits with a "champion", then taking that shouldn't end up being a negative at the table when your friend Joe takes a Battlemaster and, without any intention and solely due to the mechanics of the system, makes you look like a chump instead of a champ.

While there might be this or that build which seems broken, by and large, you have to go out of your way to unbalance the system.

Eh, it's not that hard. Most people who want to swing a big sword will look at GWM and think "AWESOME!" Combining PAM with GWM is really a very intuitive thing as well, as is combining SS with Crossbow Expert. These aren't combinations that people have to think hard about it.

And that's my issue with ill-considered design choices. They create traps for players that can either benefit them (accidentally combining PAM & GWM on a BM and overshadowing other players at the table) or hurt them (making a beastmaster melee ranger). You shouldn't require system mastery to avoid these things. And the DM shouldn't be required to make the extra effort to curtail or boost things within the system to prevent players from feeling useless or overshadowing others.

Honestly, I don't get why there's so much resistance to balance. Balance isn't boring, it doesn't make everything the same, it just brings the power of certain things into line with certain others so that there are no clearly optimal or nonoptimal choices. I've balanced 5e just with a few tweaks here and there to bring other things up to par and nerfed a few others. It's still recognisable as 5e but now if someone wants to make a champion dual wielding handaxes, they'll be just as effective as a BM without having to think too hard about their build choices. Why is that a bad thing to some of you?

 

[Hussar]

See, now I don't really see a huge gap between Battlemaster and Champion to be honest. I personally find Champion to be boring, but, power level wise? Meh, it's a wash IME. Same with GWF or Sharpshooter. Really, all you're doing is adding about 1 hit per round. Not exactly breaking the bank here. As far as Variant Human goes, well, because you lack the stat bumps, I find that VH's are often pretty gimped in a few areas. Yuppers, you got that feat, but, guess what? Your skills blow because you have an 8, 10 and 12 in three of your scores. I'm going to have a field day with that character.

Then again, I play with standard array characters. I LOVE the fact that my players wanted to go point buy. I've been using them for pinatas for weeks now. You dump statted Str to go Dex monkey? FANTASTIC. Good luck jumping over those pits to escape the falling acid traps. Fall in a hole? Good luck getting out.

I ADORE players who dump stat. Makes my job as a DM so much easier.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

See, now I don't really see a huge gap between Battlemaster and Champion to be honest. I personally find Champion to be boring, but, power level wise? Meh, it's a wash IME. Same with GWF or Sharpshooter. Really, all you're doing is adding about 1 hit per round.

Err... no, it can mean a DPR difference of around 50 to 90.

I ADORE players who dump stat. Makes my job as a DM so much easier.

So you deliberately target PC weaknesses as a metagame contrivance? I would never play with a DM who does that and I would never do it as a DM. I find the entire concept of it abhorrent and, quite frankly, more than a little immoral.

 

[outsider]

As far as Variant Human goes, well, because you lack the stat bumps, I find that VH's are often pretty gimped in a few areas. Yuppers, you got that feat, but, guess what? Your skills blow because you have an 8, 10 and 12 in three of your scores. I'm going to have a field day with that character.

Most characters of other races will have one attribute one point higher than a Variant Human. That's not a significant difference in skill usage.

The biggest disadvantage to Variant Human is probably actually the lack of Darkvision. That can be a problem for stealthers. Other than that, the human feat is at least good in comparison to most racial abilities.