D&D General Do you care how about "PC balance"?

[nevin]

But the PCs aren't usual. Where the problem arises is when the PCs are not special in their roles. If the rogue is the best sneak and assassin and the wizard can rain down fire over a wide area both are special. But if the wizard can out-sneak, out-explore, and out-assassinate the rogue (thank you invisibility, knock, and various scrying spells) then the rogue isn't special but the wizard is. And if the self-buffed cleric can outfight the fighter as well as heal and provide skills and utility the fighter really isn#'t special.

Sounf like you've had mediocre DMs. All you have to do to screw up a mage is make the encounters unpredictable enough he never knows what to plan for. If the mage always knows what's coming if course he's going to be the best. A known combat where all his memorized spells are useful is where he shines. But when you don't know what you need the wizard is not so powerful. It's pretty normal in our games for clerics and wizards to not have the perfect spell memorized because they guessed wrong.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sounf like you've had mediocre DMs. All you have to do to screw up a mage is make the encounters unpredictable enough he never knows what to plan for. If the mage always knows what's coming if course he's going to be the best. A known combat where all his memorized spells are useful is where he shines. But when you don't know what you need the wizard is not so powerful. It's pretty normal in our games for clerics and wizards to not have the perfect spell memorized because they guessed wrong.

Sounds like you've had mediocre players. Last time I played Pathfinder I was playing a Summoner - and did only a minimal amount of planning. I waited to see what the problem was - and then picked the right monster from my list to throw at it. Even the non-combat encounters I could normally find an appropriate monster to e.g. send scouting. I barely touched my spell list after level 4 because I didn't want to hog the spotlight too badly (the second most powerful member of the party was a min-maxed ranger).

A good wizard doesn't pick the perfect memorised spells and expect the DM to play straight to them. They pick flexible and useful spells that enable them to handle a huge variety of situations. And when the wizard is out of ideas as to spells to use they have a range of skills to match the fighter or barbarian to fall back on.

 

[Asisreo]

Sounf like you've had mediocre DMs. All you have to do to screw up a mage is make the encounters unpredictable enough he never knows what to plan for. If the mage always knows what's coming if course he's going to be the best. A known combat where all his memorized spells are useful is where he shines. But when you don't know what you need the wizard is not so powerful. It's pretty normal in our games for clerics and wizards to not have the perfect spell memorized because they guessed wrong.

This is a balancing point for casters that many forget. A wizard, cleric, bard, sorcerer, and warlock doesn't have access to a monster's statblocks. They don't know which saves to target, which conditions are effective, what damage types are resistant or immune, which enemies can cast spells, etc. It's all spending alot of mid-high level spell slots on uncertainties.

There's alot of metagaming that becomes apparent in these forums. I've seen complaints about the Tarrasque because they can be kited using a fly spell. Here's my question: how do you know the Tarrasque doesn't have a ranged attack when you fight it? You're gambling an attack from the Tarrasque plus the fall damage for losing concentration if you are wrong. How do you know it's range? How do you know that it even is a Tarrasque?

These answers may seem obvious because "the monster's so iconic" and "it's been discussed online." But what's online is not what's in the PHB, the only book a player should be reading extensively.

In reality, a player would ideally never see a single statblock other than their own and their party members. Even with summons and companions, there's nothing saying that you get to look at the sheet. Which makes informed decisions much harder with them.

Another thing is how a DM is free to play entirely close to their chest. Not only are they allowed to roll behind the screen and not announce legendary resistances, they aren't obligated to tell them how they work, either. The DM doesn't have to disclose any metagame information and the players should not even have that knowledge in the first place. You're not obligated to know a monster's AC, To-hit, save proficiencies, features, or actions. The DM describes the creature and you must use context clues to act.

This is why playing casters is much trickier than the community lets on. A player isn't going to immediately know why a 5th-level spell that costs concentration just to give an enemy full cover is going to give the DM a hard time in some encounters. Especially when they're up against spells like Cone of Cold which does alot of damage in a huge area and Dominate Person which is literal mind control to NPC's.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In reality, a player would ideally never see a single statblock other than their own and their party members. Even with summons and companions, there's nothing saying that you get to look at the sheet. Which makes informed decisions much harder with them.

In reality, however, a character living in the world would know much more in the way of myths and legends of that world than the player does. At least some of the metagaming counteracts that the characters have lived in that world all their life and we as players have not.

 

[Reynard]

In reality, however, a character living in the world would know much more in the way of myths and legends of that world than the player does. At least some of the metagaming counteracts that the characters have lived in that world all their life and we as players have not.

This is why I try to make some minor changes to most monsters. It not only emulates how rumor and BS seeps into "common knowledge" it also keeps the game fresh and fun for veteran players.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Down my way there are a lot of veteran D&Ders who have been both GMs and players. Using fire vs a troll etc isn't going to surprise them. In such an environment, if a GM wants to make the monsters mysterious, they have to create their own.

The best rpg I ever played in was centred on hidden knowledge - a home brew we called the Dream Game. It was set in our own world. We entered dreams to protect the dreamers from "Externals", entities whose true nature we never determined. Everything was mysterious in that game. We only discovered that magic worked in the physical world about half way thru the campaign, and never figured out how to use it. Paul, the GM, had done a ridiculous amount of work creating his setting. But that's what the GM needs to do to run a successful game of that type.

 

[Asisreo]

In reality, however, a character living in the world would know much more in the way of myths and legends of that world than the player does. At least some of the metagaming counteracts that the characters have lived in that world all their life and we as players have not.

Well, that's a factor of the world they live in. I can't imagine anyone knows much about liches other than they're undead magic casters. Beyond that, A lich smart enough to be more than just a wizard skeleton would kill anyone that knows anything too important.

But I agree a character would know a troll is weak to fire or an ogre is really dumb. That doesn't mean they know how frequent a saving throw will occur or they know which damage types to avoid.

 

[Xeviat]

I do, and I've seen PCs that care. Sometimes, it's when someone is stealing the show, but mostly I've seen it when someone is vastly underperforming. I saw this in 3E with a ranger using TWFing and weapon finesse with short swords simply not competing with the Barbarian using his natural strength and a greataxe with no relevant feats.

 

[Krachek]

DnD assume that players and DM cooperate to have fun and live and great adventure.
if everybody cooperate balance is done much more easily since everybody help.

 

[Haffrung]

The thing is, outside of message boards, I have never encountered a player that actually cares about these things relative to other PCs. I have encountered many players who are concerned about how they stack up to the adventure or the world, but that makes a lot of sense since (to use video game parlance) D&D is essentially a PvE experience.

RPG forums are not even remotely representative of the real-world D&D player base. Build and balance culture is very prominent on forums, but really not a big thing in the real world. The WotC braintrust made this clear when they were promoting D&D Next; their polls showed them that hardcore character op enthusiasts and their intense interest in balance made up a fraction of the player base. That's why they turned their back on the crunchy, math-heavy, optimized approach of 3e and 4e.

It makes sense that char op and balance should be so prominent on forums - it's a kind of sub-hobby for people who aren't actually playing the game. A way to engage with the game and with other enthusiasts when you're sitting at home alone. WotC's other big game, Magic, is built on that kind of engagement.

There are lots of ways to enjoy RPGs. But it's a mistake to think the hobby horses of the extremely online are shared by the far larger number of players who aren't extremely online.

tldr; no