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

[Micah Sweet]

Lunging Maneuver. "Hit a guy over there, get extra damage". It's not hard.

The Champion actually has 2 decision points because it gets 2 fighting style on its way to level 20.

And, I'm sorry, but 3 decision point isn't hard and the Totems give you basically passive buffs. The Bear is basically just 'be tougher', how is that in any way difficult or complicated? Heck, you don't even need to choose more than once and simply stick to the same totem all the way though. It's more complicated to order a sandwich at Subway for pete's sake and that thing will last you 30 minutes top, you pick a totem once, at the same time you pick the subclass by the way, and you're set for multiple game sessions.

If that's 'too complicated', present it to your player without the other totems as the Bear Totem Barbarian. Nobody ever picks the other ones anyway

Also, the Berzerker exist.

At some point we gotta ask ourselves how much more simplified we can make things for people who, frankly, don't seem to care about the game at all.

As long as they're playing, and hopefully buying their new core books, that's all WotC cares about.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Balance is one of those things where I think it depends on what you are trying to do, but it is always a trade off. I think sometimes people have a rigid sense of what balance should mean (i.e. it should be about parity between character options, PCs being too powerful or too weak, about challenge levels scaling a certain way, etc). But I think that really depends on the kind of game. Sometimes rough edges add to the fun, sometimes it is important to preserve game balance. So it is the kind of thing where I think you set out your balance goals in the beginning and stick with them as best you can (if you are going to break things, that is fine as long as you know what you are breaking and why)

 

[jmartkdr2]

Balance is one of those things where I think it depends on what you are trying to do, but it is always a trade off. I think sometimes people have a rigid sense of what balance should mean (i.e. it should be about parity between character options, PCs being too powerful or too weak, about challenge levels scaling a certain way, etc). But I think that really depends on the kind of game. Sometimes rough edges add to the fun, sometimes it is important to preserve game balance. So it is the kind of thing where I think you set out your balance goals in the beginning and stick with them as best you can (if you are going to break things, that is fine as long as you know what you are breaking and why)

Balance isn't always about the tradeoff between two things - sometimes balance itself requires a tradeoff in terms of available variety.

That's why a lot of people have really vague, rough definitions, or have just given up on seeing balance as a goal at all - because anything narrower can't be done without removing something else we actually like.

DnD isn't a universal game engine or generic fantasy game, but it's pretty broad and that's one of the reasons we still play it.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You need to keep the Champion maneuverless. There has to be a simple martial(Champion) and simple caster(Warlock) for those people who don't like or want complexity, and I've run into a number of them over the years.

How dumbed down do we need to make it to protect theoretical players who cant be bothered to follow even the most basic resource management? Doing this just poisons the entire class. Why not reserve sidekick classes for those that don't actually want to engage with the game beyond "I hit it"?

Also, the barbarian already fills this role, and the warlock is anything but the simple spell blaster the game needs.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So what would be your simple easy no-thinking-required-to-play class?

Sidekick classes. Make a healer, thief, warrior, and mage. That way there's a "kid brother button masher" class in every flavor. When people want to learn the game, they can move on to a big boy class. If they don't they probably don't care that much about their effectiveness.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If you can provide a better reason than you don't like it, sure. Show me objectively why people who want simple should not have a simple class to play. One good reason is all I'm asking for.

Because I don't believe the people who barely want to play the game should own any class. Or if we care so much about these theoretical players, where's the no decision "pew pew pew" mage or the braindead heal bot? Why are they locked into one class?

Won't someone think of the people who don't want to think?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Balance isn't always about the tradeoff between two things - sometimes balance itself requires a tradeoff in terms of available variety.

I wasn't trying to assert it was always a trade off between two things. Just that there is generally a cost when you choose balance (and there are costs for choosing other priorities too). But that isn't that example a trade off between two things? you are trading 'available variety' for 'balance'.

 

[James Gasik]

I think we need to look at this not from the perspective of "I want to turn off my brain and attack" but "new player".

If you managed to talk your buddy into playing an RPG, and they like fantasy but have never played an RPG, they're going to have issues.

Unlike most computer RPG's, there's no tutorial here! The game doesn't truly being until 3rd level, and they're going to need to start at 1st.

Some games can be quite daunting- look at PF1. Ability Scores, Race, Alternate Racial Traits, Class, Archetype, Feats, Traits, Skills- even if you play Joe Fighter, you need to carefully select weapons and armor!

5e is simpler, but not that much so. As a 1st level Fighter one needs to select Ability Scores, Race, Fighting Style, Skills, Background, and weapons and armor. And what if Tasha's is in play? Then you might find yourself fiddling around with what race means! Or have some alternate class feature (I haven't read the book, do Fighters get one?).

And that's not even getting into another big factor- setting. Some settings offer different races or Feats- and Crawford's ruminations and Dragonlance seem to indicate that Feats may cease being optional- and at the very least, that Backgrounds are going to turn into more than "2 proficiencies and a ribbon".

I don't even think the Fighter, as it exists, is the best "pick up and play" class. Every archetype in D&D needs it's own "starter kit" version.

I don't think Warlock is simple enough to be "my first caster" either, to be honest.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sidekick classes. Make a healer, thief, warrior, and mage. That way there's a "kid brother button masher" class in every flavor. When people want to learn the game, they can move on to a big boy class. If they don't they probably don't care that much about their effectiveness.

I mean I would phrase it a bit better. but yes this

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I think we need to look at this not from the perspective of "I want to turn off my brain and attack" but "new player".

If you managed to talk your buddy into playing an RPG, and they like fantasy but have never played an RPG, they're going to have issues.

I don't think I have ever seen a new player gravitate towards the fighter. Basically every single person I have introduced wants to do some magic stuff, then get told "no, here's a guy with a stick".

It's frankly insulting to them, and denies the rest of us a decent warrior type.