D&D 5E What is balance to you, and why do you care (or don't)?

[GMforPowergamers]

Why it is not an attack roll? And as it is superhero game, the 'tank' could just as easily be a guy in tank-like armour.

if you want your armor to be invunrable you need to take the invunrable ability that will require a str/hit hard to get throught

And when we are talking about this sort of difference in strength it is utterly absurd.

a str 8 rouge can deal 1d6+5d6 +7 (5 from dex 2 from magic) while the 22 str (giant str belt) paliden deals 1d8+8 (6 from str and 2 magic) with him being stronger and having a bigger blade...

There should be a massive list of foes Batman simply is unable to harm, because they're just too tough, whilst Superman could harm them with ease, and in turn basically

and those shouldn't be in the game...

 

[Umbran]

Balance is a quality of a system that makes my job as GM easier, in that it makes the behavior of the system predictable.

While there's more than one form of this, I'm most interested in the "balance of opportunity" others have already mentioned. A very well balanced system means that, broadly, all characters end up generally effective and spotlight fairly naturally moves around without my having to take specific actions as a GM to shift it.

I personally prefer this balance to be evident not only in the long term. I don't want players sitting on their hands through an entire combat, for example, because they have no effective way to participate. Not every character needs to be able to be the damage-producing star, but nobody should feel like they are on the bench, unless they wanted it that way.

 

[Jer]

Why it is not an attack roll? And as it is superhero game, the 'tank' could just as easily be a guy in tank-like armour.

If it's a guy in a suit of armor then it will be an attack roll - Superman's not just going to be able to sidle up to him and rip his armor apart, he'll have to make an attack, which represents the ability of the person being attacked to avoid the attack.

And when we are talking about this sort of difference in strength it is utterly absurd. There should be a massive list of foes Batman simply is unable to harm, because they're just too tough, whilst Superman could harm them with ease, and in turn basically vapourise any normal human with single punch if he so chose.

And now you've violated the genre horribly. Because Batman always wins in the comics - there isn't a foe you can put him up against where he won't be able to hold his ground and win.

The man killed Darkseid once. That's why in an M&M game his power level is equal to Superman's - because he's that good. If you don't want to play in the genre of superheroes I get it, not everyone does, but powering down Batman because you don't like the implications of him and Superman being peers means dialing back the power level knob on his character sheet. If you have two characters who are at the same power level they're both going to be able to take on the same threats.

This seem like the sort of attempt at balance I don't like. Try to absurdly balance a stargod with a normal skilled human. It just leads to nonsensical results and fails to represent their capabilities properly. I would just do this by making the Superman much higher power level and stating it outright that this is how it is, take it or leave it. But I'm a simulationist at heart.

The way to balance it the way you want would be to reduce Batman's power level. Which I object to because it's clear in the comics that he and Superman are at the same level and in a combat between the two of them it's a coin toss as to who wins (or more accurately - the winner is whoever's book the fight appears in). That's the "realism" that a comic book game needs to be able to emulate, and M&M does it quite well.

 

[Lanefan]

For me, the general answer to "what is balance in DnD?" the most important answer is "when each player has roughly equal opportunity to contribute to the team."

A couple clarifications:

"Roughly equal" means no one notices the imbalance. It's okay if one barbarian pc does more damage than another if the gap is small enough that players don't pick up on it. But "noticeable" is a subjective category: some players will track every point of damage dealt and add them up and notice that Abby did 4 more damage than Beth over the course of the dungeon and feel bad about it. (Obviously that's an outlier)

"Opportunity to contribute" isn't the same as "contribution" - if Dave is a quiet player who always turns down the opportunity to engage with an npc and prefers to watch Fred rp because Fred is funny - Dave has not been slighted. Which brings up another point - any part of the game that gets played counts.

This is a very good point. The question then becomes, should that opportunity to contribute exist all the time, or wax and wane as different phases of the game (exploration, combat, social, etc.) occur?

Pure balance advocates sometimes come across as saying everyone should ideally be able to contribute equally all the time, no matter what's going on in the game.

To that I say hogwash. As long as the overall total ability to contribute ends up vaguely equal, I see no problem with that opportunity coming in batches: combat characters contribute most in combat, sneaky characters contribute most in scouting and intrigue, social characters contribute most in roleplay moments, and so forth. But note that I specifically say contribute most, not contribute only; characters of different types can IME always find a way to contribute if their players wants them to.

"Contribute to the team" does depend on my assumption that DnD is a team game. You can play it otherwise but I don't like that - and "contribution" is also deliberately vague. Combat effectiveness is really hard to pin down anyways in a game with many and varied control spells, but there are non-combat ways to contribute as well, which need to be considered.

I'd prefer to read this as "contribute to the game". Oftentimes IME the actions of one or more non-team-player characters provide the best moments of the session! They might not be doing much for the team but they're sure as hell contributing to the game, and that's what matters.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I mean mechanically, roughly and maybe reflavoured a bit, Batman is probably something like a Ranger or Rogue multiclassed with Artificer (for the gadgets) and the Noble background while Supes is a Barbarian (damage reduction) or Fighter mixed in with some Sorcerer and either the folk hero (humble beginings on the farm) or hermit (well he's the only kryptonian around for a good while and has a fortress of solitude)
Bats just decided to take a whole bunch of feats for versatility and bonuses whereas Supes pumped up his raw stats instead, and neither of them is anywhere near first level.

 

[Scribe]

I mean mechanically, roughly and maybe reflavoured a bit, Batman is probably something like a Ranger or Rogue multiclassed with Artificer (for the gadgets) and the Noble background while Supes is a Barbarian (damage reduction) or Fighter mixed in with some Sorcerer and either the folk hero (humble beginings on the farm) or hermit (well he's the only kryptonian around for a good while and has a fortress of solitude)
Bats just decided to take a whole bunch of feats for versatility and bonuses whereas Supes pumped up his raw stats instead, and neither of them is anywhere near first level.

While I can appreciate the angle you are going for here, Superman is...god like. Batman, remains a man.

Its not remotely close, shouldnt be.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I mean mechanically, roughly and maybe reflavoured a bit, Batman is probably something like a Ranger or Rogue multiclassed with Artificer (for the gadgets) and the Noble background while Supes is a Barbarian (damage reduction) or Fighter mixed in with some Sorcerer and either the folk hero (humble beginings on the farm) or hermit (well he's the only kryptonian around for a good while and has a fortress of solitude)
Bats just decided to take a whole bunch of feats for versatility and bonuses whereas Supes pumped up his raw stats instead, and neither of them is anywhere near first level.

yeah... again a lot of diffrent ways to deleiver damage in D&D no need to worry about str.

a hexblade/paliden can have a 20cha an 8 str and still use a greatsword for 2d6+5 the same as a 20str paliden with a 2d6+5

meanwhile the rogue with a shortsword and an 8 str and 20 dex can throw 1d6+5 damage +xd6 sneak attack

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If it's a guy in a suit of armor then it will be an attack roll - Superman's not just going to be able to sidle up to him and rip his armor apart, he'll have to make an attack, which represents the ability of the person being attacked to avoid the attack.


And now you've violated the genre horribly. Because Batman always wins in the comics - there isn't a foe you can put him up against where he won't be able to hold his ground and win.

The man killed Darkseid once. That's why in an M&M game his power level is equal to Superman's - because he's that good. If you don't want to play in the genre of superheroes I get it, not everyone does, but powering down Batman because you don't like the implications of him and Superman being peers means dialing back the power level knob on his character sheet. If you have two characters who are at the same power level they're both going to be able to take on the same threats.


The way to balance it the way you want would be to reduce Batman's power level. Which I object to because it's clear in the comics that he and Superman are at the same level and in a combat between the two of them it's a coin toss as to who wins (or more accurately - the winner is whoever's book the fight appears in). That's the "realism" that a comic book game needs to be able to emulate, and M&M does it quite well.

It probably is not wise for me to continue to comment on game I'm not familiar with, but yeah, it doesn't seem like the sort of game I would like. And whilst I have read a bunch of superhero comics, they've been mostly Marvel, and not that much recently. And indeed, superhero genre often is too silly for my liking. With DC in particular the capabilities of the characters seem to be basically random. For example there is no bloody way a normal human would be able to harm a Kryptonian that can withstand a nuke. It is jarring enough in a comic or a movie, but in game where the players try to immerse it is unbearable to me if they actually do not have good grasp of the actual capabilities of their character.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

While I can appreciate the angle you are going for here, Superman is...god like. Batman, remains a man.

Its not remotely close, shouldnt be.

until magic, red light, or a green stone stop him... or just you know a multi millionar villian (I mean lex not bruce here)

 

[Lanefan]

At a high level, past say 10th level characters might encounter a flying ghost like foe. A mundane fighter that can't fly and has no magic at all can't do anything in this combat. So the player will just sit and do nothing. Many will say this is normal and acceptable and part of the game, while also saying they greatly dislike this. But as this is made into the rules, most feel nothing can be done.

At high level, say past 10th, characters might encounter an anti-magical glade with savage foes. The high magic spellcasters can't do anything in this combat. So the players will just sit and do nothing. Except here nearly everyone will be screaming that not only is this wrong, but it must never be done in a game.

I think both of these are quite acceptable, in moderation.

So, why the difference? Why is it that doing massive negative things to a mundane character so they can't even play the game perfectly fine. But even the idea of doing anything to effect spellcasters will never even be considered?

Why is it fine to say to a player of a fighter or rogue character to just sit back as they can't play the game for a couple minutes? But it's unacceptable to tell the player of a wizard or cleric that they can't play the game even for just a couple seconds?

There's a fairly long history of spellcaster players en masse being a squeaky wheel, and the results are clear in how the game's design has changed over the years around spellcasting in terms of frequency (spells per day and cantrips), reliability (harder to interrupt) and safety (removal of risk to the caster).