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

[Willie the Duck]

I'd start and stop with a) vaguely* balancing the system around what they'd logically do and then b) not worrying about it any more.
* - trying to fine-tune balance beyond vague parameters is a fool's errand: better to just set expectations up-front that while balance is a consideration in design, it's not THE consideration in design, and go from there.

That's an option. One I guess I correctly predicted you would say. Then one has to live with the consequences, and one of those is that casters will be very popular and there will be plenty of threads about how fighters got shafted.

Where I say if they're smart enough to find a shortcut, let 'em get fat. They've earned it.

First and foremost, the analogy clearly isn't perfect -- discovering that the system, minus DM intervention, doesn't stop you from going and resting with incredible frequency requires the barest minimum of smartness. Regardless, the question becomes 'do people really enjoy getting fat? IRL I certainly don't. Moving from metaphor to gaming, if the online complaining that 5e is default-set to easy mode is any indication, quite possibly people may not always appreciate the downstream consequences of such a setup. Regardless, again, in that case people had then best be prepared for the consequences of that decision.

Letting players decide how to proceed will IME eventually see the players run themselves into far more trouble than does trying to dictate how they proceed.

Right, and then tend to discuss options for how to mitigate this issue, which is what I thought we were doing (at least in regards for the trouble that is imbalance). I guess not directly, as here we're just conversing in response to Helldritch's assertion that they don't find it to be a problem because they curate the workday to match the guidelines.

 

[Helldritch]

*If not however Helldritch is doing it, by the 'resting means ending the play session' or 'the opponents/treasure will flee/regroup if you go out to rest' method with which you and I both started, I suspect.

Easy, we voted upon what we wanted as groups. 12 players and 1 DM (me). We analyzed how the game was supposed to work and we checked if optional rules, if any, would help us reinforce the play style that the game was advocating. Without ensuring the number of rounds, expected combat per day and a wish for a minimal lethality in the game, you risk to see problems with some classes.
1) Short rest classes will be disadvanted over long rest ones. As shorter encounters in shorter rounds will tend to favor the Nova style, the 5mwd and will make pure martials like trivial.
2) Martials in particular will be left in the dust. So will monks and casters relying on short rests for boosts in damage.
3) This will break a bit of the narrative as after a fight, long rest classes will want to rest...
4) On the other hand, too many fights can also break the narrative, as long rest class will lag behind.
5) It is all a matter of pacing. For all its qualities, 5ed failed to explain the whys and hows of its design. A new DM must read a lot or be coached into how to drive the game. It is a case of easy to learn, hard to master.

The balance is there, it is just that some misses were obvious (beast ranger, monk of the elements...) and the fixes were easy enough to do but were not done at launch. And as much as I hate TCoE for a few things, it did corrected a few bugs. Not the same way I did, but at least it tried. (Just adding Ki for high wisdom made monks quite good in our games.)
One of the failure of 5ed is that it tries to be both a narrative game and roll game at the same time. My feeling is that the narrative side of RPG is a bit more proeminent now than it was a decade ago. Example is the CR YouTube show. The narrative is much more proeminent than in many games/table of D&D I see. It is now a model by which many tries to stick to, but the rules as they are do not really and fully support the style. Especially with inexperienced DM or players that are there for the win and not the story. Matt's players are actors that understands the value of sacrifices for the story. Most players are not in that category.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Regardless, the question becomes 'do people really enjoy getting fat?

it may sound weird but I found myslef (back in 4e) having to explain almost that exact qustion.
(I am well into overweight)

I had a player who was always trying to find the perfect build, the perfect 'way' to play 4e. He would get mad when people chose subobtimal (even slightly) choices. His argument was "Any sane person would see the best route to there goal and take it" so I asked if I (then slowly others) was sane?

I then said "In the real world the way to get ahead is pretty well known right?" and he of course said no, but I asked "Is it getting a degree for an in demand job or going for what you want?" I followed up with "Smoking is unhealth so no one should smoke right?" (by the way he smoked). "I mean going to the jim eating right learning basic psychology and how to influence people are all pretty basic things we can all do right..." once he got the idea I came back to "How many people do you know who live an optimal life?"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

2) Martials in particular will be left in the dust. So will monks and casters relying on short rests for boosts in damage.

i wonder if this point is true, why so many people who don't like fighter (Short rest heavy class) do enjoy warlock (short rest heavy class)?

I keep useing the hexblade as my example pf what I want fighters kook mire like

 

[Vaalingrade]

Regardless, the question becomes 'do people really enjoy getting fat?

Being poorly designed like all animals, we are meant to enjoy the process but the idea is that natural scarcity will prevent us from exceeding design parameters which is just plain not planned for in the original specs.

But then we're also built with an intellect that made us capable of destroying scarcity.

Basically, humans are the wizards in the game of life.

Poor game balance isn't just for RPGs.

 

[Helldritch]

That's an option. One I guess I correctly predicted you would say. Then one has to live with the consequences, and one of those is that casters will be very popular and there will be plenty of threads about how fighters got shafted.

First and foremost, the analogy clearly isn't perfect -- discovering that the system, minus DM intervention, doesn't stop you from going and resting with incredible frequency requires the barest minimum of smartness. Regardless, the question becomes 'do people really enjoy getting fat? IRL I certainly don't. Moving from metaphor to gaming, if the online complaining that 5e is default-set to easy mode is any indication, quite possibly people may not always appreciate the downstream consequences of such a setup. Regardless, again, in that case people had then best be prepared for the consequences of that decision.

Right, and then tend to discuss options for how to mitigate this issue, which is what I thought we were doing (at least in regards for the trouble that is imbalance). I guess not directly, as here we're just conversing in response to Helldritch's assertion that they don't find it to be a problem because they curate the workday to match the guidelines.

I must say that I did not curated but the whole groups did. We played dozens of simulations at launch and found that the 5mwd of 3.xed was making a comeback. We discussed with other DMs and groups and found out that without the set number of encounters detailed in the DMG some classes would suffer. Mainly martials but short rest classes too. We even sent an email but never got answered... 5ed was both close and far from D&D Next play tests...

As for the 5mwd, we simply applied the solution we had found in 3.xed. Forcing a number of set encounters and varying the encounter types so that casters would not get all the spot light. And this is much more easier to do in 5ed than in 3.xed.

 

[Lanefan]

That's an option. One I guess I correctly predicted you would say. Then one has to live with the consequences, and one of those is that casters will be very popular and there will be plenty of threads about how fighters got shafted.

In a 5e environment, sure.

But that vague balance in a different design might just as easily end up favouring martials over casters.

First and foremost, the analogy clearly isn't perfect -- discovering that the system, minus DM intervention, doesn't stop you from going and resting with incredible frequency requires the barest minimum of smartness. Regardless, the question becomes 'do people really enjoy getting fat? IRL I certainly don't. Moving from metaphor to gaming, if the online complaining that 5e is default-set to easy mode is any indication, quite possibly people may not always appreciate the downstream consequences of such a setup. Regardless, again, in that case people had then best be prepared for the consequences of that decision.

What doesn't often happen, I suspect, is DMs jumping up the difficulty of the one or two battles the party does take on in a day and-or putting the party into more difficult adventures where caution makes sense.

Right, and then tend to discuss options for how to mitigate this issue, which is what I thought we were doing (at least in regards for the trouble that is imbalance). I guess not directly, as here we're just conversing in response to Helldritch's assertion that they don't find it to be a problem because they curate the workday to match the guidelines.

True. I'm not big on curating the workday like that; I'd rather just set the adventure neutrally ahead of time and let the players/PCs approach it as they will. I mean, half the time when I set an adventure I don't even know which of their PCs they'll run through it, and I never know whether they'll bother trying to gather info ahead of time in order to tweak their lineup to suit.

And sure, sometimes I put them on a hard clock; but that gets really annoying if overused and so I don't do it that often. Far more often I'll set it up such that either before or during the adventure they'll learn what might (or will!) happen if the mission doesn't succeed, which puts a different (and IMO much more in-keeping-with-the-situation) kind of pressure on them to get it done and get it right.

 

[Helldritch]

i wonder if this point is true, why so many people who don't like fighter (Short rest heavy class) do enjoy warlock (short rest heavy class)?

I keep useing the hexblade as my example pf what I want fighters kook mire like

The Hexblade is a really powerful class that came late in 5ed development.
The weaknesses of the fighters are eleminated with the versatility of the warlock and the fact that even if the warlock is a short rest class, it does not heavily rely on its spells to get the job done. And it can also attack from range with eldritch blast. A GWM would not be able to be both efficient at range and in close combat. Too MAD. The hexblade attacks with its charisma at all time.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Being poorly designed like all animals, we are meant to enjoy the process but the idea is that natural scarcity will prevent us from exceeding design parameters which is just plain not planned for in the original specs.
But then we're also built with an intellect that made us capable of destroying scarcity.
Basically, humans are the wizards in the game of life.
Poor game balance isn't just for RPGs.

Right. This is all just a metaphor, so I won't delve any deeper into this. Point is, just because people will take advantage of the opportunities does not mean everyone really enjoys the resultant gameplay experience as well as one where the the potential game rules don't run into this problem or they have been otherwise addressed.

I must say that I did not curated but the whole groups did. We ...

I meant what you and your group did. If they are on this board and party to this discussion, I should change it to Heldritch, et al.

In a 5e environment, sure.
But that vague balance in a different design might just as easily end up favouring martials over casters.

Possibly. Certainly if 1) magic were the system with more rolls-for success (say, roll to cast and then roll to-hit) or had a chance of adverse effects, or 2) magic was the simple system and martial abilities had the bevy of options. I can't think of a later one, but both Call of Cthulhu and Monte Cook's Invisible Suns have systems where spells take resources, require rolls, have the potential for devastating negative consequences to the caster and... shooting a gun is just roll to hit and then damage-on.

What doesn't often happen, I suspect, is DMs jumping up the difficulty of the one or two battles the party does take on in a day and-or putting the party into more difficult adventures where caution makes sense.

I've found that adding numbers to both sides of the equation (PCs become tougher, but they face tougher challenges) leads to increased likelihood that failure becomes catastrophic collapse (such as TPK). If people are fine with that, more power to them. If not, that's what Gritty Realism rest, Heldritch's method, or lots of other options can address.

True. I'm not big on curating the workday like that; I'd rather just set the adventure neutrally ahead of time and let the players/PCs approach it as they will. I mean, half the time when I set an adventure I don't even know which of their PCs they'll run through it, and I never know whether they'll bother trying to gather info ahead of time in order to tweak their lineup to suit.

And sure, sometimes I put them on a hard clock; but that gets really annoying if overused and so I don't do it that often. Far more often I'll set it up such that either before or during the adventure they'll learn what might (or will!) happen if the mission doesn't succeed, which puts a different (and IMO much more in-keeping-with-the-situation) kind of pressure on them to get it done and get it right.

Alright. Good to know. In which case, the 5MWD has been an issue you've been dealing with for many editions of the game, and you have figured out a rhythm. So long as the group is enjoying themselves, more power to you.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The Hexblade is a really powerful class that came late in 5ed development.

wait what? it's from a 5 year old book Xanathars guide

The weaknesses of the fighters are eleminated with the versatility of the warlock and the fact that even if the warlock is a short rest class, it does not heavily rely on its spells to get the job done.

okay so if fighter is fine then hexblade must be so broken it got errated quick... over the last 5 years how many times has it been rolled back in power?

And it can also attack from range with eldritch blast. A GWM would not be able to be both efficient at range and in close combat. Too MAD. The hexblade attacks with its charisma at all time.

I mean Str can be used for both ranged and melee attacks (Thrown weapons) so what else might it be...

oh right it does everything a 9th level fighter can but ALSO has cantrips and 5th level spells... at least unlike cleric and bard it doesn't also have the 4th,3rd,2nd,and 1st level slots