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

[Medic]

No need to errata it. It was balanced. Powerfull, but balanced.

Mind, this was the same splat that introduced the elf samurai, and there hasn't been an errata for that either as far as I'm aware. So you are right, it seems the developers felt that what they put in the book functions as intended. Shenanigans involving the hexblade subclass mostly pertain to its function as a multiclass dip that makes weapon-reliant paladins (and sometimes bards) SAD.

How many javelin can someone carry? Not a lot. How many eldritch blasts? Unlimited. Having charisma to both attack in melee and cast spells is really powerful. It is why a lot of cleric takes shillelagh through magic initiate Druid. Attacking with wisdom makes a whole world of difference and build.

This highlights an issue with some Ability Scores simply being better than others, I think. Intelligence is a dump for (almost) every non-wizard or artificer, and the practical benefits of Strength are relegated to heavy armor access (which is somewhat neutered as bounded accuracy guarantees that other armors end up about as good) and a few chunkier weapons.

The aforementioned elf samurai can still outpace the damage of a single-classed hexblade of the same level through Dexterity and reliably pull frontline duty with a finesse weapon and shield when the need arises.

 

[overgeeked]

yeah imagine if fighteers got weapon experitise... like skill expertise you double your prof with chosen weapons.

They should get minimum damage dice for weapons and/or free-form maneuvers like warrior’s deeds in DCC. So any weapon that deals less than a d8 does a d8 in the hands of a fighter, for example. Or instead of set maneuvers they pick ahead of time, they’re all listed and available at any time plus they can come up with their own. Even something as simple as burning a dice to add to-hit and/or burning a dice to add to damage.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And? This is pretty late in a game. Devs learned from their past mistakes.

since we know there will not be a new edition until 2024 (and maybe not even then if they go .5 or just call it an anniversary) so at BEST it is the half way point of the edition and if it isn't the 2nd half it can't be late.

No need to errata it. It was balanced. Powerfull, but balanced.

if Hexblade is powerful but balanced then fighter is not (maybe you can argue that a 20th level fighter is on par with a 10th level hex blade)

How many javelin can someone carry?

I don't know 20 maybe in a quiver.

Not a lot. How many eldritch blasts? Unlimited.

even with unlimted (not withstanding bashing down a door or wall) most times you don't have to use ONLY ranged for all of the time.

Having charisma to both attack in melee and cast spells is really powerful.

it is. But again fighters can base everything off str and rogues can base everything off dex,

It is why a lot of cleric takes shillelagh through magic initiate Druid. Attacking with wisdom makes a whole world of difference and build.

it does. when 6e comes around I really hope we get attack rolls based on your best stat... I could even argue a fighter with wisdom based attacks would work.

Ho the sarcasm...

yup

 

[Maxperson]

yup... my favorite is when in the same thread I am BOTH a old grognard AND a new fake fan of 5e...

Yep. When you are in a discussion and the people at the extremes of the sides are all calling you the names reserved for "the other side," you know you are in the right place.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that being critical of a portion or portions of an edition is not edition warring. I really like 5e. I can't stand the adventuring day balance it has. Worst idea ever!!

 

[Helldritch]

since we know there will not be a new edition until 2024 (and maybe not even then if they go .5 or just call it an anniversary) so at BEST it is the half way point of the edition and if it isn't the 2nd half it can't be late.

It was late for the start up design. An edition usually last about what? 10 years and most of the non-too powered stuff comes around the 3rd to 4th year. Which is about right. Tasha, if anything, brought up a lot sooner the power creep that comes with the end of an edition. It maybe why they go for the 5.5. They are trying to extend the life of the edition. Which is a good thing.

if Hexblade is powerful but balanced then fighter is not (maybe you can argue that a 20th level fighter is on par with a 10th level hex blade)

Nah... damage wise, they are about the same. It is in versatility that the Hexblade shines.

I don't know 20 maybe in a quiver.

A quiver should hold about 6 javelins. A quiver holds 20 arrows (24 depending on the edition). Javelins simply do not compete with eldritch blasts.

even with unlimted (not withstanding bashing down a door or wall) most times you don't have to use ONLY ranged for all of the time.

Only if you have mono type encounters, no flying or levitating enemies, no enemies attacking from a vantage point and so on, enemies that attack at range and move away and so on. I try to vary both the enemy types and the terrain features. You pretty much need ranged almost every fight.

it is. But again fighters can base everything off str and rogues can base everything off dex,

Yep. Which is a shame. Strength should add more to deal than what it is doing right now. Heavy armor is lacking in that medium armor is giving almost the same AC as Plate and Shield. If you get Medium armor master, you get the same AC with breast plate and shield.

it does. when 6e comes around I really hope we get attack rolls based on your best stat... I could even argue a fighter with wisdom based attacks would work.

And I hope not. I hope that some stat get downgraded a bit (i.e. Dexterity) and others upgraded. Going damage reduction with heavy and medium armor might be something. Adding strength requirements for heavy armor (on a better range than what we have now) could prove a good way to do it. Intelligence should bring bonus skills/languages at character creation. This would help classes with low skills to have something other than the basics.

 

[Helldritch]

Yep. When you are in a discussion and the people at the extremes of the sides are all calling you the names reserved for "the other side," you know you are in the right place.

Yep, you're absolutely right on that one.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that being critical of a portion or portions of an edition is not edition warring. I really like 5e. I can't stand the adventuring day balance it has. Worst idea ever!!

Both yes and no. It is not a bad idea per say. But because of the ways it must be done, it is one. It shuts down the narrative style and promotes an all combat as in a simulation style of play; which is not what most people want. You need to make an hybrid style to be able to make it make sense. Which is exactly what I/we did.

 

[Krachek]

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.

It’s not only narrative and rolling, they identify seven activities players may find appealing and satisfying : acting, exploring, instigating, fighting, optimizing, problem solving, storytelling.

 

[Maxperson]

Both yes and no. It is not a bad idea per say. But because of the ways it must be done, it is one. It shuts down the narrative style and promotes an all combat as in a simulation style of play; which is not what most people want. You need to make an hybrid style to be able to make it make sense. Which is exactly what I/we did.

How did you balance it? I've found that if a creature can survive a party nova and dish back, PCs are going to die. If it can't, then I need multiple encounters for that "day."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It was late for the start up design. An edition usually last about what? 10 years and most of the non-too powered stuff comes around the 3rd to 4th year. Which is about right. Tasha, if anything, brought up a lot sooner the power creep that comes with the end of an edition. It maybe why they go for the 5.5. They are trying to extend the life of the edition. Which is a good thing.

sigh... so again half way through is late...

Nah... damage wise, they are about the same. It is in versatility that the Hexblade shines.

if they are the same damage, AND the hexblade is Versatility TOO that shows the problem... same with bard/cleric with 2 attacks and

A quiver should hold about 6 javelins. A quiver holds 20 arrows (24 depending on the edition). Javelins simply do not compete with eldritch blasts.

I don't actually have a number for you. I will say you can carry enough for most games... or throwing axes that I know people can carry a bunch of

Only if you have mono type encounters, no flying or levitating enemies, no enemies attacking from a vantage point and so on, enemies that attack at range and move away and so on. I try to vary both the enemy types and the terrain features. You pretty much need ranged almost every fight.

where yes some encounters would require it if you go with multi types you have melee characters face melee and let the range types handle the range ones... so most encounters you WONT need those javalins

 

[Helldritch]

sigh... so again half way through is late...

I am not the one to blame for that you know?

if they are the same damage, AND the hexblade is Versatility TOO that shows the problem... same with bard/cleric with 2 attacks and

No about the same. The advantage is still to the fighter. The math has been shown in a previous post.

I don't actually have a number for you. I will say you can carry enough for most games... or throwing axes that I know people can carry a bunch of

Not mine, and consequently, I am the one that did the mods along with my players to shifts our play style toward the expectations.

where yes some encounters would require it if you go with multi types you have melee characters face melee and let the range types handle the range ones... so most encounters you WONT need those javalins

Which is not the way it happens to be (at least in my games). Ranged characters will be targeted by ranged attackers. If the blockers are all slain and your ranged characters start having problems, the characters focused on melee will have trouble to get to the ranged attackers if they used terrain to their advantage (ledges, tree tops etc...) or are simply flying. If the enemy melee are ignored in favor of the ranged one, it may mean that melee opponents will get to the ranged characters. One of the worst enemy for medium level characters is the manticore as its tail spikes can kill a wizard or a cleric relatively easily all the while being out of reach of melee characters. Rogues are simply outdone as they will not be able to sneak and so forth.