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

[Lanefan]

To be fair, the hare only lost in the story because the hare was reckless and stupid, not because of anything the turtle did. At least generally, there might be some variations on the tale.

Reckless and stupid - that's exactly how I like (and often play) my Wizards!

 

[Lanefan]

The soft cap stone for 1ed is 11th, and for 5th it is about the same. So I consider my comparison a valid one.

For the 5mwd
It has been a problem since 3.xed. This is a fact and it introduced a type of gameplay that I truly despise and actively counters with all my powers as a DM.

Why, though?

Why not just let the characters do - assuming some collective wisdom among them - what they would logically and reasonably do; that being to nova at the first major encounter, wipe it out, loot the fallen, and then GTFO for the day?

Sure, there'll be times when you can make 6-to-8 encounters in a day not seem contrived, and there'll also be times when the players/PCs push forward into that many if they feel like they're on a roll. But forcing that many encounters into every adventuring day seems very non-believable (in the verisimilitude sense) somehow.

And I succeeded exactly by enforcing the amount of encounters expected in a day. The natural tendency of layers is to fight with all their options available or not to fight at all. The nova I the ultimate tool of the 5mwd and this is exactly the reason why martials are seen in a bad light. When allowed to move all the time, martials simy can not keep up.

I'll bang the drum again: rein in the casters by other means - e.g. easier interruptability, no combat casting, etc. - so as to take a bit of the edge off their nova.

As for your other solutions, I fully agree. Though 1ed was a mess to find the rules, it was not as badly balanced as some might want to make us believe.

It has its own issues, to be sure; but IMO the real beauty of 1e (and 0e/Basic, for that matter) is that because it uses so many discrete subsystems one can kitbash an unbalancing subsystem into shape while not really affecting anything else.

 

[Lanefan]

re: Cantrips:

I'd much rather shed the last clinging vestiges of Vancian casting and move to a mana system or all Eldritch Blast model where you customize your one or two at-will spells with rituals doing the other heavy lifting.

We went to a spell-point system (which is, I suppose, just another name for a mana system) in our 1e-like games ages ago and found it very much a double-edged sword; so much so that for my current campaign I went back to a modified slot system. It too has problems at higher levels, but nothing I can't fix for next time I don't think; and it worked like a treat at low levels.

Also, along with the spell-point system we took out much of the Vancian pre-memorization; fine with me, as I've never liked it. All my casters* now work just like 3e Sorcerers - if you've got a slot left, you can cast any spell of that level - but only that level, no up-casting - that you know.

* - except Bards, who have their own bespoke homebrew system that still needs a lot of work.

 

[Helldritch]

Well there's your problem.

Most groups do not actually follow these guidelines. Crawford has said as much. This is why they're (tacitly) switching to a "PB per long rest" model rather than a "1 or 2 per short rest" model going forward. 5.5e (if that ends up being what they call it) is extremely likely to heavily reduce the importance of short rests. There will likely still be abilities that trigger when taking them e.g. Arcane Recovery, Song of Rest, etc., but these will either be for just one short rest per day (which most groups DO take) as with the former, or will be simply triggered by and confined to those rests so there are no knock-on consequences or losses as with the latter. (Song of Rest is useful, but it doesn't define a Bard's utility for the day.)

But yeah. If you were running numbers presuming people actually followed the 6-8 encounters and 2-3 short rests per day model, you have fallen into exactly the same trap its original creators did.

A trap, or the intended play style? I have absolutely no problems with the pace of my games, nor are my players. I guess that what works for some, does not for others. Following guidelines can be hard for some tables. And devs, in modifying the expected play are simply giving in to what the most vocals are asking for.

 

[Helldritch]

Why, though?

Why not just let the characters do - assuming some collective wisdom among them - what they would logically and reasonably do; that being to nova at the first major encounter, wipe it out, loot the fallen, and then GTFO for the day?

Sure, there'll be times when you can make 6-to-8 encounters in a day not seem contrived, and there'll also be times when the players/PCs push forward into that many if they feel like they're on a roll. But forcing that many encounters into every adventuring day seems very non-believable (in the verisimilitude sense) somehow.

I'll bang the drum again: rein in the casters by other means - e.g. easier interruptability, no combat casting, etc. - so as to take a bit of the edge off their nova.

It has its own issues, to be sure; but IMO the real beauty of 1e (and 0e/Basic, for that matter) is that because it uses so many discrete subsystems one can kitbash an unbalancing subsystem into shape while not really affecting anything else.

Some encounters are worth more than some. The 6-8 encounters are exactly for easy to medium difficulty type encounters. A hard encounter is worth two and a deadly is worth 3 or even four. This reduces the number but not the expected expenditure of resources.

All your solutions are fine in 1ed and even 2ed but 5ed was build around these expected encounters. Maybe in 6ed they will go for daily powers with all the classes. My hopes are that they avoid the blandness the classes suffered in 4ed. Some classes should be better at some thing that others will struggle and some other classes should be exactly in the middle. This is what we currently have in 5ed. It may not be perfect, but it works out fine.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A trap, or the intended play style?

Is there a difference, when players demonstrably fail to conform to the designer's intent? Seriously. If you get caught up on designing a game for a behavior pattern that simply doesn't occur often enough to be relevant to the typical group, it seems to me you have fallen into a trap of thinking people should behave in ways that they simply do not.

I have absolutely no problems with the pace of my games, nor are my players. I guess that what works for some, does not for others. Following guidelines can be hard for some tables. And devs, in modifying the expected play are simply giving in to what the most vocals are asking for.

It isn't just "what the most vocals are asking for." They've conducted their tests and realized that the expected balance point and player/DM behavior, in general, does not match the actual player/DM behavior. It is, effectively, exactly the same error they committed back in 3e, just to a (much) less egregious degree. They designed a game expecting people would play it the way it was playtested, rather than designing the game based around how people actually choose to play.

If you do, in fact, get approximately 8 combat encounters a day, then even the Champion rises up to the point of being maybe-kinda-sorta on par. And if you do, in fact, get 2-3 short rests every day (leaning toward 3 but not always 3), then Warlocks can keep up with other spellcasters (e.g. at 5th level, fresh day + 3 short rests gives you 2*4 = 8 spells that are always upcast to 3rd if that makes any difference; whereas a Wizard has four 1st, three 2nd, and two 3rd, plus three restorable spell levels via Arcane Recovery, meaning the Wizard has more spells but the Warlock has, in theory, stronger spells.) The problem is, many groups simply don't do that.

From all data that has been available to me--and, based on Crawford's direct statements, this is at least loosely like what WotC's much more official data shows--most groups are closer to 3-5 encounters a day favoring the low end. Further, they get 1-2 short rests per day, again favoring the low end (to the point of sometimes getting no short rests at all before a long rest.) Hence why they're shifting things. Players simply don't play the game the way the designers expected them to, and as a result, things are skewed to a point that the designers consider it a problem. Using my above example, the 5th level Warlock would typically get only four spells a day, whereas the Wizard still has all 9+ (anywhere between 10 and 12 total), and having a great cantrip option just doesn't quite compare to being able to drop two and a half times as many potentially combat-ending bombshells.

Also? "I don't have problems" does not mean "nobody should have problems."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Some encounters are worth more than some. The 6-8 encounters are exactly for easy to medium difficulty type encounters. A hard encounter is worth two and a deadly is worth 3 or even four. This reduces the number but not the expected expenditure of resources.

Except that that calculus straight-up falls down in 5e, because it has (sub)classes that are balanced around having enough combat rounds. Having one deadly encounter that takes 5 rounds cannot ever, even in principle, balance out with 3-4 easy to medium encounters, even if those encounters are only extremely short affairs (e.g. 2-3 rounds apiece). Because 5 rounds of a Champion making attacks will never have a higher expected number of extra crits than would be seen in 6-12 rounds. It just can't.

The game really actualy is balanced around having a certain minimum number of combat rounds. That's literally the only way that the Champion can possibly be balanced with other Fighter subclasses, to say nothing of things like Paladins.

Your drive-by edition warring I won't comment on past the end of this sentence.

 

[Helldritch]

Except that that calculus straight-up falls down in 5e, because it has (sub)classes that are balanced around having enough combat rounds. Having one deadly encounter that takes 5 rounds cannot ever, even in principle, balance out with 3-4 easy to medium encounters, even if those encounters are only extremely short affairs (e.g. 2-3 rounds apiece). Because 5 rounds of a Champion making attacks will never have a higher expected number of extra crits than would be seen in 6-12 rounds. It just can't.

The game really actualy is balanced around having a certain minimum number of combat rounds. That's literally the only way that the Champion can possibly be balanced with other Fighter subclasses, to say nothing of things like Paladins.

Your drive-by edition warring I won't comment on past the end of this sentence.

I am not edition warring. I said multiple times that 4ed was one of my favorite edition. It seems that stating a weakness and the main reason the edition failed to get the recognition it was due is not appreciated. When I criticise 5ed, I am accused of being an old grognard. When I criticise 1ed, I am a 5ed fan boy. When I criticise 4ed, I am edition warring... At least my criticism of 2ed and 3.xed flies under the radar...

As for the combat rounds. It is exactly because I do not do monotype encounters that I do get the 5 to 8 rounds of combat and it is also because I do have 6 to 8 easy to medium encounters per day that I have absolutely no problems with the game. Does 5ed has problems? Of course it has. But class balance is certainly not one, or at least not on the level some people are trying to make it appear to be.

Unfortunately, the style intended in the beginning of 5ed is not what the vocals want. I wonder how much it does suit the ones we do not hear about. Those that play without coming to the forums... We might be surprised.

 

[Helldritch]

Is there a difference, when players demonstrably fail to conform to the designer's intent? Seriously. If you get caught up on designing a game for a behavior pattern that simply doesn't occur often enough to be relevant to the typical group, it seems to me you have fallen into a trap of thinking people should behave in ways that they simply do not.


It isn't just "what the most vocals are asking for." They've conducted their tests and realized that the expected balance point and player/DM behavior, in general, does not match the actual player/DM behavior. It is, effectively, exactly the same error they committed back in 3e, just to a (much) less egregious degree. They designed a game expecting people would play it the way it was playtested, rather than designing the game based around how people actually choose to play.

If you do, in fact, get approximately 8 combat encounters a day, then even the Champion rises up to the point of being maybe-kinda-sorta on par. And if you do, in fact, get 2-3 short rests every day (leaning toward 3 but not always 3), then Warlocks can keep up with other spellcasters (e.g. at 5th level, fresh day + 3 short rests gives you 2*4 = 8 spells that are always upcast to 3rd if that makes any difference; whereas a Wizard has four 1st, three 2nd, and two 3rd, plus three restorable spell levels via Arcane Recovery, meaning the Wizard has more spells but the Warlock has, in theory, stronger spells.) The problem is, many groups simply don't do that.

From all data that has been available to me--and, based on Crawford's direct statements, this is at least loosely like what WotC's much more official data shows--most groups are closer to 3-5 encounters a day favoring the low end. Further, they get 1-2 short rests per day, again favoring the low end (to the point of sometimes getting no short rests at all before a long rest.) Hence why they're shifting things. Players simply don't play the game the way the designers expected them to, and as a result, things are skewed to a point that the designers consider it a problem. Using my above example, the 5th level Warlock would typically get only four spells a day, whereas the Wizard still has all 9+ (anywhere between 10 and 12 total), and having a great cantrip option just doesn't quite compare to being able to drop two and a half times as many potentially combat-ending bombshells.

Also? "I don't have problems" does not mean "nobody should have problems."

Players of any games will always find ways to play in unintended ways, no matter the game. Why do you think computer games put patches over patches? The same goes with D&D and all TTRPG. From the Monty haul campaigns to the craziness of some Vampire the Masquerade games where some vampires were carrying lead pipe to punch mortal with and suck them dry like yops (drinkable yougourts in the 90s) we will be surprised at how inventive some players can be. For the best, and the worst.

I do have my problems with 5ed. They're just not on par with this particular one. And it was nothing I could not correct with the optional rules we already have in the DMG or that I could create myself.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am not edition warring. I said multiple times that 4ed was one of my favorite edition. It seems that stating a weakness and the main reason the edition failed to get the recognition it was due is not appreciated. When I criticise 5ed, I am accused of being an old grognard. When I criticise 1ed, I am a 5ed fan boy. When I criticise 4ed, I am edition warring... At least my criticism of 2ed and 3.xed flies under the radar...

As for the combat rounds. It is exactly because I do not do monotype encounters that I do get the 5 to 8 rounds of combat and it is also because I do have 6 to 8 easy to medium encounters per day that I have absolutely no problems with the game. Does 5ed has problems? Of course it has. But class balance is certainly not one, or at least not on the level some people are trying to make it appear to be.

Unfortunately, the style intended in the beginning of 5ed is not what the vocals want. I wonder how much it does suit the ones we do not hear about. Those that play without coming to the forums... We might be surprised.

Why do you think it is EXCLUSIVELY "the vocals" who think this? You seem to have traded one form of over-inflated self-estimation for another. I can promise you that Wizards does not exclusively use "what are people talking about on forums" as a source of information. I would be surprised if they don't use forum discussions whatsoever, but do you truly think they collect no information on their own?

I do have my problems with 5ed. They're just not on par with this particular one. And it was nothing I could not correct with the optional rules we already have in the DMG or that I could create myself.

Again: "I don't have problems" =/= "nobody should have problems." I'm glad that these things never proved an issue for you. Jeremy Crawford's own statements (I can dig up the youtube video if you really want it) reflect that their internal playtesting and survey data from actual players led them to see that this did cause problems for other people. These problems were serious enough that they felt something needed to be done.