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

[Sacrosanct]

This is a good example of the didactic and non-inclusive rhetoric I was talking about. The inference is that once I stop fighting and just accept the One True Way, it will become easy for me to glean the laughable nature of my balance arguments....

Again with the strawmen. He's not telling you the right way to play D&D (which is what OTW is). He's telling you how the game is designed, which is an objective fact that we can measure and validate by looking at the actual rules. And that if you play a game (any game) differently than it's designed, then it is laughable to think you won't have to make tweaks to make it work for you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Absolutely correct. Once this expectation is internalized, then it becomes easy to see what must be done in my view. And it's why I find complaints about "balance" to be, as I put it and [MENTION=54380]shoak1[/MENTION] quotes as an example of me being mean (I guess), laughable and demonstrative of the poster's misunderstanding.

In order to internalize that fixing balance issues is the DM's responsibility, and especially, in order to actually do so successfully, we must also acknowledge that those issues exist, and are in no way laughable.

You have perfectly valid positions here - but you just present them as fact rather than as a position - without a nod to other perspectives or even any qualifying adjectives.

Well, I do say 'should' rather than 'is' in the first case, so it's clearly a value I hold rather than a fact. In the second, case, though, it's a fact of how 5e was designed & presented, and 5e is (and WotC has been), I think, quite open about that - I'm not sure how it could be interpreted as being otherwise.

Using words like "falsely" encourages ratcheting up of rancor and drawing up lines in the sand imo.

Those lines in the sand were drawn 20+ years ago as "Role vs Roll." It was then and is now a false dichotomy, and denying it is not drawing lines in the sand, it's pointing out the lines are arbitrary and counterproductive.

...and ironically, in my mind at least, more rewarding as well. Strangely, I think I got less enjoyment out of running the last couple editions of the game than I do out of this one.

Harder = more rewarding seems almost cliche rather than ironic, but yeah, I'm right there with you. Running 4e is so easy that I don't mind doing it, still, but I wouldn't go back to running 3.x (I might play it, OTOH), while running 5e is just a blast, bringing back the best things (and not all the worst things) about running AD&D back in the day, IMHO.

 

[iserith]

This is a good example of the didactic and non-inclusive rhetoric I was talking about. The inference is that once I stop fighting and just accept the One True Way, it will become easy for me to glean the laughable nature of my balance arguments....

I'm more than willing to talk about "balance" for your specific game. It appears that you play a particular way that is not especially compatible with the game system as it is written. It therefore makes perfect sense that you aren't 100% happy with this edition. Your ire for the game designers, however, seems misplaced and counterproductive to me and the manner in which you present your arguments elicits a negative response from some. I think it's not accurate to suggest that those who respond as such don't value "balance" (depending on what is meant by that). We just don't think you're coming at it from a positive and productive direction e.g. "I play THIS way and I need help or ideas to 'balance' it against THAT..." because your expectations as to who is responsible for maintaining "balance" in this edition are off.

 

[iserith]

In order to internalize that fixing balance issues is the DM's responsibility, and especially, in order to actually do so successfully, we must also acknowledge that those issues exist, and are in no way laughable.

What's laughable is blaming it on the game system because one's expectations are not set in accordance with the new paradigm. I don't find it laughable that someone is having issues with his or her game. In fact, I'm here because I want to help and I think my posting history speaks on enworld speaks to that. But some sure don't make it easy...

 

[Tony Vargas]

What's laughable is blaming it on the game system

It's the system that has or lacks the qualities you want, 'blame' shouldn't come into it, it's not like the system has a will of it's own and is out to ruin your campaign. Then again, it also shouldn't have any feelings to be hurt when it's shortcoming are acknowledged...

For different reasons, blaming someone for perceiving a problem isn't productive, either. Neither is it laughable.

I don't find it laughable that someone is having issues with his or her game.

Issues with the game this forum exists to discuss, 5e, that is. As much as we may be urged to 'make the game our own,' it's still 5e, or it wouldn't be on-topic to discuss here.

In fact, I'm here because I want to help and I think my posting history speaks on enworld speaks to that. But some sure don't make that easy...

Usually, you do seem to come to it with that attitude. But this isn't that kind of thread, exactly (the OP wasn't "I'm having balance issues in my campaign..."). shoak1, for instance, isn't looking for advice on how to fix his campaign, he's already done so, if I've followed his comments correctly.

 

[shoak1]

I'm more than willing to talk about "balance" for your specific game. It appears that you play a particular way that is not especially compatible with the game system as it is written. It therefore makes perfect sense that you aren't 100% happy with this edition.

I don't know how you got the impression that I play in a way incompatible with the system. In actuality, every stat, feat, and skill matters in my games - whether it be athletics, diplomacy, speak languages, GWM, or anything else. I am always hyper focused on presenting a variety of settings, challenges, and enemies/friends. Just because we don't emphasize roleplaying doesn't mean we don't use the skills associated with roleplaying - we just do them as a skill challenges rather than spend time talking in funny voices. A combat-only specialist is going to have a hard time in many of my encounters.

We definitely spend most of our playing time in combat - but that doesn't mean that it is the emphasis of our campaign, or that the PCs spend most of their time in combat as opposed to other challenges, or that combat stats are the most important stats. We just resolve the non-combat elements much quicker than we do the combats.

Our differences seem to rather revolve around sandbox vs. linear play, and in the responsibility level of the DM as opposed to the game designers in the balance of the game itself (we seem to agree that the DM is responsible in balancing the campaign and encounters), as well as how balanced the game currently is to the norm, and whether that balance is definable and achievable.

 

[iserith]

I don't know how you got the impression that I play in a way incompatible with the system. In actuality, every stat, feat, and skill matters in my games - whether it be athletics, diplomacy, speak languages, GWM, or anything else. I am always hyper focused on presenting a variety of settings, challenges, and enemies/friends. Just because we don't emphasize roleplaying doesn't mean we don't use the skills associated with roleplaying - we just do them as a skill challenges rather than spend time talking in funny voices. A combat-only specialist is going to have a hard time in many of my encounters.

We definitely spend most of our playing time in combat - but that doesn't mean that it is the emphasis of our campaign, or that the PCs spend most of their time in combat as opposed to other challenges, or that combat stats are the most important stats. We just resolve the non-combat elements much quicker than we do the combats.

If I remember correctly, you made several comments to the effect that some combat-related feats were not "balanced" against other combat-related feats. If you're playing with all the pillars of the game, then "balancing" these feats against one another don't strike me as much of a priority since they'd also be "balanced" against non-combat feats such that whereas Mr. Sharpshooter is going to be killin' it in combat pillar, he won't shine as much as someone with, say, Observant, when it comes to the exploration pillar. [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] made several posts to this effect (again, iirc).

As an aside, roleplaying isn't about talking in funny voices. You're roleplaying when you make decisions your character might also reasonably make when in combat (or in other scenes). So don't let anyone tell you you're not roleplaying.

 

[Yunru]

The combat pillar feats do need balancing though. Not against the other pillars, but against themselves.

Case in point: compare Grappler and Shield Master. Shield Master is so superior to Grappler that it's laughable. It's even better at grappling than the Grappler feat is, if you willing to use a shield. (Alternatively compare Grappler and Tavern Brawler, although I chose not to because one is a half-feat.)

 

[shoak1]

If I remember correctly, you made several comments to the effect that some combat-related feats were not "balanced" against other combat-related feats. If you're playing with all the pillars of the game, then "balancing" these feats against one another don't strike me as much of a priority since they'd also be "balanced" against non-combat feats such that whereas Mr. Sharpshooter is going to be killin' it in combat pillar, he won't shine as much as someone with, say, Observant, when it comes to the exploration pillar.

I do believe there are some glaring imbalances in the game, and to the contrary of what you seem to think, I do base that on assigning relatively equal weights to those pillars.

And I am talking here about balancing the game system, not balancing things based on individual tables' skewing of the relative importance of these pillars. That sort of balancing can and should be done by each individual group, not on a game system level.

I think many of you are quick to assume that perceived imbalances are due to people not playing the game as intended - and that really couldn't be farther from the truth (in my case at least, but I think in the case of many/most such complaints by others).

 

[Corwin]

I'm worried my request for a follow-up, after having been called out by name, is going to fall off the current page of this thread. And that my patience, to this point, will fail to be rewarded with the common courtesy of a response.

@shoak1, Not sure what "side" you think I'm on, but by including me above I could use a clarification. Are you saying you disagree with my theory that there are some systems/editions better suited for certain types of individuals? And that maybe the same can be said of game forums?