Fiddling around with Fifth Ed

[Oofta]

If you're playing a game that emphasizes one aspect over another, then that changes some of the optimization math, but it doesn't change that some options will be better than others. Maybe you apply a weighting function of 0.4 to combat feats, and 1.7 to social feats, or whatever. Your game no longer looks like what the designers had in mind, but that doesn't change the inherent imbalance; nor does it excuse imbalance in the game that they did have in mind.
If the DM compensates for every choice that you make, then there is no point in playing a game at all, let alone trying to optimize anything. There's a reason why meta-gaming is explicitly against the rules in this edition.

I don't think it's possible to have a game that's built along the lines of 5E to be "perfectly balanced". Especially since what that means is going to vary from person to person.

I can only go by personal experience here, I don't see GWM all that often and it doesn't seem to be particularly overpowered in the games I play. At certain levels, certain builds are going to be more effective depending on the type of game you run. It's never been to the point of people having major heartburn with it.

That may not be the case with your games or in your experience. If you feel that certain feats or builds are overpowered you can always either do something to lower their power or increase others. For example, a two level dip into warlock bothered me (as much because of fluff as anything) so I made a house rule for my next campaign to not allow sharing of warlock spell slots with other classes.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't think it's possible to have a game that's built along the lines of 5E to be "perfectly balanced". Especially since what that means is going to vary from person to person.

No, but you can have better balance. The core game, sans feats and multi-classing, is better balanced than the expanded game which includes those options.

There's a certain type of game, which certainly appears to be what the designer's had in mind since it is represented in the actual published adventures, where some options are much better than other options. They probably could have done a better job of keeping options balanced, under those circumstances, if they'd tried a little bit harder. It is a mark against them, that they chose not to.

 

[Oofta]

No, but you can have better balance. The core game, sans feats and multi-classing, is better balanced than the expanded game which includes those options.

There's a certain type of game, which certainly appears to be what the designer's had in mind since it is represented in the actual published adventures, where some options are much better than other options. They probably could have done a better job of keeping options balanced, under those circumstances, if they'd tried a little bit harder. It is a mark against them, that they chose not to.

I would simply say that 5E is better balanced than previous versions (not including 4E because it had a different foundation).

So I think they did do "better". You can always do better. That and if you follow the general guidelines things aren't particularly imbalanced in the games I've played. YMMV.

 

[Umbran]

The truth is ....

The real truth is that you were asked to not post in this thread again.

Folks, please continue as if CapnZapp won't be taking part in the conversatiion. Thank you.

 

[OB1]

That's not what you said, though. You were talking power level, not trade-offs.

The game assumes a certain power level, as baseline. Monster challenge ratings, and the experience guidelines, are designed around that assumption. There's advice in the book, to help you reach that baseline - things like a Fighter should put their highest score in Strength or Dexterity, and then Constitution. The designers have some idea for what a balanced character is supposed to look like.

If you're good at math, and optimizing systems of equations, then you can create a character which is better than that. You can outperform the assumed-default character in routine situations, while only falling behind in situations which are rare or unimportant; or maybe you're just better, and you never fall behind.

Why is that option available? Why would the designers include decision points which allow one character to exceed the performance of another character on a routine basis? Why not just include options which don't affect balance to such a degree?

Take 2 parties, one follows the baseline advice during character generation, then picks whatever, perhaps with multi classing and feats off.

The second has MC and Feats on and optimizes both individually and as a party for maximum combat effectiveness.

Both play the same AP strictly as written in the book.

Both parties are able to overcome the combat challenges.

Both parties are able to overcome social challenges.

Both parties are able to overcome exploration challenges.

How they do it changes based on the choices they made, that’s what makes each game and each character unique.

One party might have each PC contributing equally to each pillar. Another might have a combat specialist and a social specialist and an exploration specialist.

And as long as they started their characters with the base assumption stated in the PHB, they can all succeed.

Essentially, optimizing for combat simply means having more power than you need or can use for the expected rules. Like driving a Ferrari on the 405 freeway. You may look good doing it, but the power is wasted.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And as long as they started their characters with the base assumption stated in the PHB, they can all succeed.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. One group might struggle through those challenges, though, while the other soars above them; and there's no real reason to choose the former if the latter is an option. (There's also a possibility that the former group will fail to overcome those challenges, and the latter group will have a much smaller chance of failure.)

If you peel back the small layers of system mastery required, it's a lot like offering everyone in the party a +2 weapon at the outset. They may not need it, but why even give them that option in the first place? What is the benefit to be found in giving a mechanical advantage to those players, who clearly already have a solid grasp of the underlying principles?

 

[OB1]

If you peel back the small layers of system mastery required, it's a lot like offering everyone in the party a +2 weapon at the outset. They may not need it, but why even give them that option in the first place? What is the benefit to be found in giving a mechanical advantage to those players, who clearly already have a solid grasp of the underlying principles?

If they have a solid grasp of the underlying principles they should be more inclined to create unique, outlier builds for the challenge of it.

Show off your system mastery with a 15 str, 14 Con, 8 Dex elf fighter who never increases those stats with an ABI but is still effective.

 

[Salthorae]

There is a large part of me that wants to either DM or play in a game where there are no ASI just to see what that feels like. Maybe using feats in place, maybe/maybe not removing the +1 stat part of any of those feats but leaving the rest...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would simply say that 5E is better balanced than previous versions (not including 4E because it had a different foundation).

Y'know, "...except 4e" should just be understood in every blanket statement about D&D...

5e's slow pace of release puts it at a stage in the inevitable progression of bloat & power creep that's a lot less problematic than any other edition faced in the fourth year of its run...

It does also have a couple of features that help with balance. Proficiency, for instance, gives an even bonus progression across all classes as you level, that other editions didn't have...

Sometimes I think we've been playing different games. I've always modified and tweaked the game to suit my needs and to fit the group in every edition.

Modifying and tweaking D&D has a long tradition, D&D has always benefited from being fixed up with variants, mods, house rules, whatever you want to call 'em...
Even when the community wasn't too accepting of house rules, as under the 3.x/PF RAW uber alles zietgiest, if you could pull it off, the game could benefit. (And there were some variants, like E6 that did work so much better as to attain some measure of popularity.)

I've played or DMed a couple of campaigns to 20th now. There were rough spots and a lot of monsters were tweaked using the rules in the DMG but the game was still playable. I can't say that about previous editions.

No edition of D&D has really been playable at high level... And 'high' has often started at 9th. They might have been wildly imbalanced or problematic or lacking materials, but it's always been something some DMs are capable of dealing with - just not so many or so well that high-level games ever saw as much play as lower-level ones.

And, it's not just high level, either: D&D has always had a sweet spot... A range of levels that it just works better in terms of playability, class balance, encounter balance, setting considerations, etc. It's varied with the edition, early D&D it started maybe as early as 3rd, ended by 9th. 3e, at the time, I'd say managed 1-10, though I was mainly playing in one group at the time, and we eschewed Polymorph and a few other shenanigans that could make things iffy as early as 7th - in a way, the ideal sweetspot of 3e wasn't a level range, so much as a variant: E6. In 5e, I think, there was an awareness of the sweetspot in the design phase, and it's reflected in the exp table. If you compare the experience it takes to get to the next level to the exp budget of an adventuring 'day,' you get an interesting ratio - 1:1, at 1st & 2nd level. It goes up after that, more than doubling by 4th level, stays stable through to 11th, then it gets faster again, about 1.5 days' worth of experience to level from then on. 5e speeds up advancement through the first couple of levels to get you into the sweet spot, then slows down to savor it, before speeding up again after you leave it.

Without that dynamic 5e wouldn't have felt like D&D, so they didn't try to 'fix' it, but they also made an effort to focus the experience(npi) of play in a campaign on that sweet spot. Kinda brilliant, really.

The thought that 3.5 or older editions were better at supporting high level play is simply laughable.

3.5 at least made an effort with the Epic Level handbook, and BECMI with, well, the M & the I, guess it was - I mean, support for actually /being/ a god, right?

I will agree that some previous versions had more complexity. I disagree that more complexity is necessarily better.

Complexity is a price you pay to get something that'll hopefully, net, make the game better. D&D had a lot of needless complexity, back in the day.

But yes. Obviously D&D it's failing by being one of the most successful versions ever released. Sad.

And, last blanket statement: D&D has always sold better... than every other RPG!

;P

 

[OB1]

There is a large part of me that wants to either DM or play in a game where there are no ASI just to see what that feels like. Maybe using feats in place, maybe/maybe not removing the +1 stat part of any of those feats but leaving the rest...

That’s on my 5e bucket list. Think it would be fun. Another way to do it is to cap ability scores at 16 instead of 20.

As is playing in an Average Array 11,11,11,10,10,10 and Misfit Array 9,9,8,8,7,7 campaign with caps of 12 for abilities.