D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

[ph0rk]

The fundamental issue as I see it is that daily attrition as a basis for balancing limited use abilities on different schedules then any balance that exists is going to be tenuous at best.

I couldn't agree more.

Particularly if people won't even consider resource attrition as a topic worthy of consideration in a game where, say, rogues exist with essentially no resources at all aside from hit points/hit die.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The fundamental issue as I see it is that daily attrition as a basis for balancing limited use abilities on different schedules then any balance that exists is going to be tenuous at best. Having to structure play to account for it is one of the biggest reasons why I enjoy playing, but will not run most version of D&D.

Yeah. And it sucks, because people kinda have a stake in the specific kinds of resource schedules D&D uses--to the point that they may assert that lacking those specific schedules is enough to harm or even ruin the game!--which makes it doubly hard to have any kind of conversation about making things better.

I couldn't agree more.

Particularly if people won't even consider resource attrition as a topic worthy of consideration in a game where, say, rogues exist with essentially no resources at all aside from hit points/hit die.

Yeah....it's tough. For some, to even broach the question of "do we need different resource schedules" is tantamount to completely erasing all differences between all characters. And when you have that strident a view on it, discussion is pretty much impossible; to deviate is to destroy, thus there can be no thought of how things might do better if done differently. Naturally, we all have subjective lines that we struggle to accept any change past, but this particular one is so endemic to D&D-based games (including, as Campbell noted, SR and some other not-actually-D&D games), and so deeply polarized, it's...kind of without compare. Either you totally buy that stark differences in resource schedules are completely compatible with "sufficient" balance (whatever definition we give "sufficient"), or you don't absolutely buy that, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

 

[Manbearcat]

The fundamental issue as I see it is that daily attrition as a basis for balancing limited use abilities on different schedules then any balance that exists is going to be tenuous at best. Having to structure play to account for it is one of the biggest reasons why I enjoy playing, but will not run most version of D&D.

Yeah. And it sucks, because people kinda have a stake in the specific kinds of resource schedules D&D uses--to the point that they may assert that lacking those specific schedules is enough to harm or even ruin the game!--which makes it doubly hard to have any kind of conversation about making things better.


Yeah....it's tough. For some, to even broach the question of "do we need different resource schedules" is tantamount to completely erasing all differences between all characters. And when you have that strident a view on it, discussion is pretty much impossible; to deviate is to destroy, thus there can be no thought of how things might do better if done differently. Naturally, we all have subjective lines that we struggle to accept any change past, but this particular one is so endemic to D&D-based games (including, as Campbell noted, SR and some other not-actually-D&D games), and so deeply polarized, it's...kind of without compare. Either you totally buy that stark differences in resource schedules are completely compatible with "sufficient" balance (whatever definition we give "sufficient"), or you don't absolutely buy that, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

My biggest effort in the 5e playtest period was to try to convince the player base to lobby WotC to schedule resources around the scene/encounter and balance the game around the scene/encounter (rather than the Adventuring Day).

That_was_the_biggest_brick_wall_ever.

And ironically, many of the same people who most staunchly and stridently disagreed with me on this issue now complain about the negative downstream effects of balancing the game around the Adventuring Day!

As soon as I knew that battle was unwinnable I was out. Donezo.

 

[loverdrive]

... Wizard players! These pointy hat buggers are always out to ruin everybody else's fun!

The solution is very simple. Let's get rid of wizards.

D&D should be made by Fighters of the Coast.

 

[Aldarc]

Outside of games like Mage or Ars Magica where the point is for everyone to play an overpowered spellcaster I have only run into game balance issues with spellcasters in D&D analogs (including Shadowrun here).

Not a problem in Conan 2d20.
Not a problem in RuneQuest.
Not a problem Legend of the Five Rings.
Not a problem in Exalted.
Not a problem in Classic Deadlands.

The fundamental issue as I see it is that daily attrition as a basis for balancing limited use abilities on different schedules then any balance that exists is going to be tenuous at best. Having to structure play to account for it is one of the biggest reasons why I enjoy playing, but will not run most version of D&D.

I think that this was one of the fundamental reasons why I found Blue Rose and True 20 more suited for my game preferrences back in my neophyte d20 days, but I doubt that I could have elucidated this then. Blue Rose switched magic from a daily attrition resource to an at-will skill system, often with checks against fatigue, which I believe came from Steve Kenson's The Witch's Handbook.

Incidentally, Jeremy Crawford was one of the designers who worked on Blue Rose, alongside Steve Kenson, John Snead, and Dawn Elliot.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, and these people get it. That's what ultimately matters much more. The truth is that 5e is well enough balanced that people can play what they want and do mostly OK. Majority of players don't really care about the sort of minute balance differences we here obsess about.

I'm reading through the latter 10 pages of this thread. This post stood out to me.

I think the claim is true. What puzzles me, though, is why those people play a RPG which has all the mechanical minutiae of D&D and relies on GM management of spotlight and consequences to work around the outcomes of those minutiae? Why not just play a game that cuts to the chase: that foregrounds these elements of colour and theme and doesn't faff around with all the fiddly and potentially unbalanced stuff? (To itemise them all would be a lifetime's work: but let's start with the rules for calculating AC and the various ways these interact with DEX, speed and stealth; the rules for weapon properties; the action economy; spell durations; minor differences in skill bonuses; etc.)

 

[Aldarc]

I'm reading through the latter 10 pages of this thread. This post stood out to me.

I think the claim is true. What puzzles me, though, is why those people play a RPG which has all the mechanical minutiae of D&D and relies on GM management of spotlight and consequences to work around the outcomes of those minutiae? Why not just play a game that cuts to the chase: that foregrounds these elements of colour and theme and doesn't faff around with all the fiddly and potentially unbalanced stuff? (To itemise them all would be a lifetime's work: but let's start with the rules for calculating AC and the various ways these interact with DEX, speed and stealth; the rules for weapon properties; the action economy; spell durations; minor differences in skill bonuses; etc.)

 

[pemerton]

Which in this case, I think, means a path-dependent outcome of first-mover advantage.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which in this case, I think, means a path-dependent outcome of first-mover advantage.

There's also the aforementioned network effects, and people...well, for lack of a better term, staking part of their identity on the form of the game.

The bitter and acrimonious debates, particularly over what is permitted to count as "D&D," speak to a vein of identity that is bound up in being "a D&D player." In effect, for some, I think it flat doesn't matter whether the game tries to be more enjoyable, nor whether it tries to solve issues with its design. For these folks, the only thing that matters is having their identity validated, an identity built in some small way on a specific conception of D&D's essence and fundamental nature.

I want to be clear that I absolutely do not think this is a universal opinion. But I also think people who sincerely hold it (whether or not they are aware of it) really exist and have for some time. Frex, the folks who got upset about the removal of THAC0 because it meant anyone could play D&D, not just those "smart" enough to calculate with descending AC. The lines are usually a hell of a lot more fuzzy than that, though, so I don't really want to call out any specific position or person today; the THAC0 example is just conveniently blatant and explicit.

 

[ph0rk]

Frex, the folks who got upset about the removal of THAC0 because it meant anyone could play D&D, not just those "smart" enough to calculate with descending AC. The lines are usually a hell of a lot more fuzzy than that, though, so I don't really want to call out any specific position or person today; the THAC0 example is just conveniently blatant and explicit.

I think that's two different arguments, though -

One, a rejection of the simplification. If consuming/plaing D&D is made easier, people will do it for the wrong reasons or the wrong people will do it! (Theodor Adorno railing that housewives might listen to opera on vinyl while washing dishes. They should attend the Opera!).

Two, a nebulous set of ideas about the right way the game is to be structured - and cosmic power for high level spellcasters is part of it. Interestingly, weak and fail low level spellcasters wasn't part of it, because people with this position don't seem to talk about that much. In a game where death was around every door this actually served as a balance mechanism of sorts.

I'm sure many people are in both positions, and they combine nicely, but they need not be present in everyone rejecting the idea of change.