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

[Lanefan]

The problem here is that, by definition, all of the pillars are vital to play. That's literally why we call them pillars, as in, they are the foundation of the play experience. If they're supposed to be pillars, everyone is supposed to be able to meaningfully participate. Otherwise they're something else.

All of the pillars are vital to play but not always at the same moment, and sometimes any given character is simply going to be more or less important at any given time

An analogy: if you're on the power play the odds are much lower (though not zero!) your goalie is going to be important at that moment than if you're on the penalty kill. A goalie is still vital to the team, however.

Same applies to D&D. If the mission of the moment requires stealth then your party sneak is going to be important while the plate-clad tanks aren't, and the reverse becomes true in a front-line melee. Having both on hand is still vital to the party.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The problem here is that, by definition, all of the pillars are vital to play. That's literally why we call them pillars, as in, they are the foundation of the play experience. If they're supposed to be pillars, everyone is supposed to be able to meaningfully participate. Otherwise they're something else.

Yes, meaningfully. Everyone should be able to participate meaningfully. But this is not same than equally. The fighter can contribute in social scenes and a bard in fight scenes, but it is still fine if the fighter can contribute more in fight scenes and bard in social scenes.

 

[Lanefan]

Balance is the second priority, a servant--as all other game elements should be--to fun. Balance is necessary to make sure everyone is able to have a reasonably equal feeling of effectiveness.

Agreed.

The problem comes when people take balance as necessitating making things weaker., more difficult or more of a pain,

Not agreed.

IMO the problem goes the other way, when people take balance as always meaning the weaker things need to be powered up or made easier to match the stronger; as all you get then is rampant player-side power creep and eventually an arms race against the setting/foes/DM/game leading to D&D-as-supers even if that's not what you want.

It's a mix. Sometimes things need to be nerfed to balance them, other times they need a boost.

 

[Vaalingrade]

as all you get then is rampant player-side power creep and eventually an arms race against the setting/foes/DM/game leading to D&D-as-supers

Except for the arms race, this is the desired result for me, yes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Except for the arms race, this is the desired result for me, yes.

So you just want the characters to be all-capable superheroes that always win with ease?

 

[Ondath]

Except for the arms race, this is the desired result for me, yes.

Do you mean this is the desired result following character progression through play (so higher levels become D&D-as-supers) or following power creep in player options (so 2014 5E characters start off weak and 2022 5E characters can do much more)? I feel like there's a distinction to be made.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, meaningfully. Everyone should be able to participate meaningfully. But this is not same than equally. The fighter can contribute in social scenes and a bard in fight scenes, but it is still fine if the fighter can contribute more in fight scenes and bard in social scenes.

And what, exactly, does the Fighter contribute to social scenes that isn't literally what ANYONE can do?

Because that's (as always) been the key problem. Fighters get nothing meaningful to contribute. They could literally be replaced with anyone else and do exactly the same task. At least 4e gave them Utility powers.

So you just want the characters to be all-capable superheroes that always win with ease?

It would help the discussion rather a lot if you didn't attack men comprised of straw.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And what, exactly, does the Fighter contribute to social scenes that isn't literally what ANYONE can do?

Anyone is not there, your character is. Depending on build, there could be bespoke ways, but why there necessarily needs to be? Open your mount, say things! You're contributing, why there needs to be something more?

 

[James Gasik]

And what, exactly, does the Fighter contribute to social scenes that isn't literally what ANYONE can do?

Because that's (as always) been the key problem. Fighters get nothing meaningful to contribute. They could literally be replaced with anyone else and do exactly the same task. At least 4e gave them Utility powers.


It would help the discussion rather a lot if you didn't attack men comprised of straw.

There are advantages to attacking strawmen!

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FyE058yxFvY/maxresdefault.jpg

 

[Lanefan]

I like most of what you are saying in the post and just wanted to extract this bit as I'm unclear on your delineation of "contribute to the team" and "contribute to the game". In a cooperative game, I don't necessarily see the difference.

The difference is that I don't care very much about whether the PCs are co-operating or each going their own way or hacking each other to bits, as long as people are having fun doing it. I've run parties-full of all three types, and as DM each have their pros and cons but all are (or very much can be) entertaining as hell.

Perhaps you could expound on what you mean by "non-team-player". If it is someone who might do a less than helpful thing from time to time - maybe even ducking out of combat to snag some treasure or attend to some other personality trait or flaw, then I say have at it. I suppose different groups might draw the line between playing cooperatively and playing selfishly in different places. Anyway, what do you picture when you say these things?

A non-team-player character is the one who busts up any plan the moment it's put into action, the one who (as per your example) sneaks off to find the loot* while the others are still fighting, the one who doesn't even wait for any planning but just wades in (sometimes named Leroy Jenkins, I hear), or in some cases the one who is actively working against the party as a double agent or whatever.

* - I can think of a few occasions when doing this actually saved the party, as in the loot was some item that turned the tide of the combat.