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

[Don Durito]

It seems obvious to me that when people want balance they mean "within acceptable tolerance".

Therefore a game is generally considered well-balanced when a significant number of people agree that it is within what they feel is within acceptable tolerance.

Everything else to me just seems like semantics.

 

[Lucas Yew]

So...leaving your other points aside, you do realize that this was said by a supervillain, right? And not just a supervillain, but a specifically "angry about not being instantly beloved by senpai~~" supervillain. A supervillain who had built his whole life around trying to "prove" that Mr. Incredible was ACTUALLY the REAL jerk because he refused to accept the supervillain-kiddo's UNDYING LOVE AND PRAISE.

Like...this is a dude who was literally stalking someone, got super ultra told off for it. Then instead of, y'know, learning to respect others' boundaries and accept that just because you feel something for someone does not in any way oblige them to feel anything for you, he instead bent his (significant!) genius to proving that Mr. Incredible SHOULD have loved him just as much as he loved Mr. Incredible.

That line is, quite literally, exactly equivalent to an internet Nice Guy becoming so upset about a pretty woman not reciprocating his feelings, that he spends his whole life finding a way to make everyone beautiful solely to prove that beauty is unimportant. It's honestly mind-boggling how many people think this is a Vital Philosophical Truth when it's just an angry man-child vapidly insisting that the world SHOULD revolve around him.

(It also doesn't work at all if you even slightly think about it. "If every food is delicious, then no food is delicious." "If every book is good, then no books are good." "If every outfit you wear is comfortable and stylish, then no outfit you wear is comfortable and stylish." It's just utter nonsense that SOUNDS profound. Which is the whole point of Syndrome as a character; he's vain, completely self-absorbed, and so shallow that a walk through the ocean of his soul wouldn't get your feet wet.)

I was trying to refrain from posting, then I saw this awesome rant smashing Syndrome's mad mantra to smithereens. Couldn't help posting in the end...

 

[Aldarc]

It seems obvious to me that when people want balance they mean "within acceptable tolerance".

Therefore a game is generally considered well-balanced when a significant number of people agree that it is within what they feel is within acceptable tolerance.

Pretty much, particularly in game design.

Everything else to me just seems like semantics.

Or some form of equivocation regarding "balance."

 

[pemerton]

My Dunedain Warrior (basically a Fighter) in Adventures in Middle Earth has a culture virtue (Feat) which he can use either in or out of combat (and budget seperately) whereby revealing his ancestry can heal his allies and frighten enemies and gain a bonus to social skills during scenes when he reveals him. He also has a subclass ability that gives him advantage and disadvantage on intimidate or persuasion when he draws his magic sword and makes an appropriate speech.

Elendil! I am Aragorn son of Arathorn, and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dunadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil's son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!

 

[Minigiant]

The Fighter is an elite version of the Warrior class.

The question is how this is expressed:

1. The Fighter is a lot better at Combat roles than the Warrior.
2. The Fighter is a lot better at Combat roles than the Warrior and has some access to a Social or Exploration role
3. The Fighter is a lot better at Combat roles than the Warrior and has an additional Social or Exploration role.
4. The Fighter is only slightly better at Combat roles than the Warrior but has access to more Combat roles.
5. The Fighter is only slightly better at Combat roles than the Warrior but has access to more Combat role and take a Social or Exploration roles.
6. The Fighter is only slightly better at Combat roles than the Warrior but can get a an additional Combat, Social, or Exploration role.
7. The Fighter is just a Warrior who progresses faster.

The community hasn't united or come to a majority of which one the Fighter is. Until it does, it cannot correctly contrast it with spellcasters.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ooooooor...you could just use the actual, accepted definition of "balance," which is that "balance" includes the idea of acceptable ranges, because we're talking about statistics, rather than about precise equalities and perfect, diamond rules.

Acceptable to whom? It seems acceptable to the large number of people who play champions.

And, as I said, I've run those numbers on things like the Champion, and they are not acceptable for it, for something specifically geared for doing damage and almost nothing else. The Champion does not even get up to 80% of the Battlemaster's damage output until you've had at least five reasonably-sized fights a day, and it takes 7-8 to actually be in the same ballpark.

So about the recommended number of fights... Seems that they did balance it!

Also, one thing in balancing, that at least used to be a thing in WoW (haven't played it in ages) was that the passive options were slightly worse than the active ones at their best. And I think this is a good principle. Idea being that if the person having the active option uses it consistently optimally, they'll do slightly better than the passive option, but if they fail to use it properly, they'll do slightly worse. I think this is something that would apply to Battlemaster/Champion comparison.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It seems obvious to me that when people want balance they mean "within acceptable tolerance".

Therefore a game is generally considered well-balanced when a significant number of people agree that it is within what they feel is within acceptable tolerance.

Everything else to me just seems like semantics.

Then it arguably is balanced. It is balanced well enough that most people have fun playing it and it is massively popular. And sure it could be improved, (I certainly have some ideas about that!) but it is rather questionable how much that's worth of WotC''s time. Would improving the balance by 5% significantly increase the player satisfaction and the sales? Would that be worth all the effort it would require? I doubt it.

 

[Minigiant]

Then it arguably is balanced. It is balanced well enough that most people have fun playing it and it is massively popular. And sure it could be improved, (I certainly have some ideas about that!) but it is rather questionable how much that's worth of WotC''s time. Would improving the balance by 5% significantly increase the player satisfaction and the sales? Would that be worth all the effort it would require? I doubt it.

I think it the popularity argument only works if D&D had a major RPG competition of a similar level. Not for nothing, D&D doesn't have a competitor of similar or near similar strength, market share, or corporate backing.

So 5e really has to screw up and some company lower than WOTC has to vulture it for balance to be seen as problem.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think it the popularity argument only works if D&D had a major RPG competition of a similar level. Not for nothing, D&D doesn't have a competitor of similar or near similar strength, market share, or corporate backing.

So 5e really has to screw up and some company lower than WOTC has to vulture it for balance to be seen as problem.

Sure, but it's not like something similar haven't happened before, albeit it was not the balance they screwed up, they were hyper fused on it.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure, but it's not like something similar haven't happened before, albeit it was not the balance they screwed up, they were hyper fused on it.

It was previous balance issues that cause that hyper focus.

Which is my point. WOTC and D&D lack the competition to be beaten by anyone but itself. D&D can make tons of money as a C rated product. There is no Pepsi to D&D's Coke. D&D can put out a New Coke and still make money and be popular. They can only fail to meet their own goalposts.

This allows them to never tackle the warrior/rogue/caster issue as a schedule for the whole edition.