Given that as true, what do you think *is* the primary reason some people find little-to-no imbalance issues with some of these things you find so egregiously troubling?
D&D 5E What does balance mean to you?
Tony Vargas
Legend
That's a question as old as imbalanced games, and the answers haven't changed: You don't find them because they don't directly affect you, or because you don't look for them, or because you can't see them, or because you take uncovered faults personally so deny them even to yourself, or because you're making good use of them & don't want to lose that, or because you like to argue and the 'there's a problem' side is taken....
...or because they're not there...
...they're still not very comfortable answers, either.
Nailing down what's 'intended' isn't as cut & dried as all that, either. Is the basic pdf 'intended?' The not-explicitly-optional parts of the PH? AL play? Feats are explicitly optional, does using feats mean you're not playing the game as intended?
I think we're intended to play the game how we like. If we find anything to complain about, clearly, we're not playing it as intended, or we'd like it. Right?
I know, that sounds crazy, but when you consider that they were trying to please grognards and h4ters and 4vengers and attract back fans who hadn't played in a decades, what the heck were they supposed to do?
No pinned-down, standard way to play could have done that. Even as soft as the presentation is, there are folks who feel their faction has been short changed.
Last edited:
no and no....But I suspect you weren't really interested in discussing that point, but rather your intent was to tell me that if I don't like this edition I should play another, and if I don't like this forum I can go to another. And THAT is not cool imo. Of course maybe I'm wrong - apologies if I misunderstood your intent there....
This argument and others like it essentially excuses everything in the game, and renders any discussions about balance pointless. I don't believe subjective things cant or shouldnt be balanced. I dont believe that there is not or should not be a norm in every game around which the system can be balanced. I believe in impartial objective balancing around a game standard as a crucial basic design premise. I believe that while not everything can be defined to complete exactitude that prudent estimation can and should be used to reach the goal of balace, and that arguments that exactitude cannot be achieved miss that point.
We have laws in this country based on norms of behavior and it is the cornerstone of our society. Simply because it is difficult to determine that norm, or that many people have different versions of right and wrong, is not an excuse to not work toward that goal. People who perceive injustices should be heard and there perceptions addressed based on merit. They should not be quieted, told they should go to some other country if they dont like it, or told debating laws is pointless because there are so many different opinions - or that everyone can just do as they please and that our laws are just "tools."
Long live law and order, objective reasoning, and the scientific method !!!!!
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
That was the point, I hope some of the irony got through.
The way I see/define balance - a sufficiency of meaningful/viable choices - there are both objective and subjective (or at the very least, quantitative and qualitative) factors.
Specifically, with my preferred definition, and IMHO, 'viability' of a choice is quantitative with strict inferiority being an objective (and extreme) test for non-viability, while 'meaningful' can be much more subjective. A choice may not seem meaningful to everyone, but if it's meaningful to /someone/, it's to the good. The number of choices is objective, what's 'sufficient' might vary from one player to another.
So, while what's balanced enough for one player or GM or designer may be subjective and hard even to explain, it is entirely possible to compare systems and conclude that one is better-balanced then another with some confidence.
Not should that undermine a preference for the less-balanced system.
The other subjective aspect is whether balance is even desirable in the first place.
Last edited:
Restating this to cut through the arguments and hyperbowl.
Yet there you were, insinuating otherwise...
It's amazing how little a point you actually had when the truth of what I said, and your agreement with its inherent truth, is solidified on all sides.
The cognitive dissonance you are exhibiting, between the way you read my original response to you, and the post of yours I was originally responding to, is alarming. I would humbly request that you go back a few pages and re-read the post to which I'm referring with fresh eyes. Then come back here and tell us all who's actually not being "cool".
But I suspect you aren't really interested in apologizing at this point, but rather your intent is to tell me that you don't like my casting a light on your hypocrisy. And THAT is not cool imo.
I think if one is only considering Advantage on attack rolls, there is some truth to what you say (bonus action vs. attack to knock a foe prone). And the saving throw stuff is very sweet in many builds.
But for some builds, Grappler is better than Shield Master. For example, a raging Barbarian. He has advantage on strength ability checks while raging. It's easy for him to grapple a foe and also attack with advantage on round one, on round two he knocks the foe prone and attacks with advantage. On round three, he just beats on the guy twice per round. Sure, this has a bit more of a setup, but the foe rarely escapes the grapple/prone condition and has disadvantage on his attacks back. Even a tough foe like an 18 Str Troll only has a 22% chance of escaping a grapple each round against a 5th level 16 Str raging Barbarian PC with Athletics trained. And if the foe tries to grapple him back, that foe tends to fail.
Edit note: NPCs with multiple attacks per round have a higher chance to escape the grapple per round.
With Shield Mastery, he can repeatedly knock down the foe and get advantage on his attacks, but the foe can also stand up and attack back with no penalty (or run away or whatever).
So the Grappling raging Barbarian typically gives up two advantaged attacks and in return, he gets rounds and rounds of him having advantage (without using his bonus action) and his foe having disadvantage back. That's pretty nice. Is it as great as the "no damage Dex saves" on occasion from Shield Mastery? Maybe, maybe not. But a grappling Barbarian can just decimate one foe at a time with little damage in return and no need to Frenzy.
And grapple can work well with a Barbarian that wants to switch between two handed weapons and one handed weapons (2 handed when not grappling, 1 handed when grappling). The Shield Master Barbarian is pretty much stuck in combat with a one handed weapon and a shield.
The restrain portion of Grappler is fairly weeksauce. Just knock the guy prone and he already has the same problems. The only time restrain works better than prone is when other ranged PCs attack. Personally, it is better to just Grapple/Prone him and beat on him most times, but restraining a really tough foe so that your Sharpshooter Archer can pin cushion him at -5/+10 can be sweet as well.
Grapple also allows one to move foes precisely where one wants to, so the NPC can be moved into area effect spells, etc. Shield Master can do this somewhat as well, but the PC must be able to actually position his PC and it's harder to always move the foe around corners, through other PCs/NPCs, etc. Grapple has slightly finer control.
I think that people look at the defensive portion of Shield Master and say "Wow". Yes, it is nice, but for a raging Barbarian that already gets advantage on Dex saves (and for some Barbarians half damage on most attacks), on a 28 point Fireball for example, it means that he typically takes 0 points of damage instead of 7 (instead of 14 for some Barbarians). Meh. Ok, but the Barbarian can save a lot more damage taken when his grappled/prone foe has disadvantage on his attack rolls on multiple rounds. And both feats can be combined with an Enlarge spell by an arcane PC to handle even huge foes.
Also, the grapple strategy is not often affected by initiative order. If the Shield Master PC knocks down a foe, that foe can sometimes (based on init) stand back up before another melee PC can attack it with advantage. The grappled and grappled/prone NPC rarely escapes the grapple, so he rarely gets back up before another melee PC can attack. And the grappled/prone NPC has disadvantage against all melee PCs that it tries to attack, not just the Grappler.
Last edited:
But all of that comes from just plain grappling, which doesn't require Grappler at all.
Grappler adds advantage, but so does Prone.
Grappler allows one to not have a larger creature auto escape.
I personally prefer doing an advantaged melee weapon attack on round one instead of grapple and prone. That is a personal preference that normal grappling does not give. I don't know the hit points of a foe and if I bloody it (we use bloodied tokens on PCs as per the "Describing the Effects of Damage" section on page 197 of the PHB), I won't bother to prone it the following round, I'll just take 1 or 2 swings to take the foe out. It saves my PC an attack used to prone it. Not having the feat does not allow for this.
You mentioned that Shield Master is better at grappling that Grappler. It is not with regards to locking down a foe. It does give the option of 2 advantaged attacks per round for the Shield Master PC, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee any advantage for any other PC (based on init). Also, assuming that the foe is knocked prone, the PC has a shield so cannot just go over and grapple the prone foe without giving up attacks in the future.
Granted, some people might think that just using a normal grapple is sufficient without the feat. It can be. Grapple and prone the foe on round one. Attack with advantage on round two. The feat, to me, just gives the PC the option of grappling larger foes and the extra advantage attack if the PC wants to actually attack in round one or wanted to re-grapple a wounded foe and prevent escape while still attacking with advantage. Like I said, restrain is weeksauce and very infrequently helpful.
But I can definitely understand your POV on this.
