• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E Tedium for balance. Should we balance powerful effects with bookkeeping?

Is Tedium a valid form of balancing?

  • Yes. Tedious bookkeeping is a valid way to balance poweful effects.

    Votes: 6 7.2%
  • No. Tedious bookeeping is not a valid way to balance powerful effects.

    Votes: 68 81.9%
  • To a certain degree. As long as it doesn't take too much time, but your skill should be rewarded.

    Votes: 9 10.8%
  • I don't know. I don't have an opinion on it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

The problem with plane shift, the components and limitations are fine. If the players are initiating the planar journey.
However, if the plot requires planar travel then the components become a nuisance.
I think the intention is the opposite. If the adventure requires planar travel, it will be provided to them as much as needed. The plane shift spell is merely additional power that a player can access.

I think there should never be any adventure that requires a certain spell or ability to continue to play.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think the intention is the opposite. If the adventure requires planar travel, it will be provided to them as much as needed. The plane shift spell is merely additional power that a player can access.

I think there should never be any adventure that requires a certain spell or ability to continue to play.
On the other hand, I can easily see needing to look for another path to one's goal if the first option is blocked for whatever reason. There's more than one way to shift a plane.
 

"Tedious" is a loaded word and means different things to different people.

I've never been fond of bookkeeping in an RPG, I never did assent to play the Accountant class. But I recognize the need for things like encumbrance, spell slots, quivers, (expensive) material components and the like. But there's different ways to approach each and different ways to make them appealing.

Many games use equipment slots rather than track pounds/coins carried (ex., A game might allow you to carry one Large item, three medium items, five small items and two special items).

Some games use a special roll or incorporate "ammo checks" into the attack roll (ex., nat 1 on d20 means you just used your last arrow or may move your equipment stores down a level, such as - plentiful -> some -> a handful -> out).

Some games don't worry about spell components (B/X), others may only care about expensive components (5E's spell focus, component pouch and spell components that cost specific gold). Some games don't use spell slots and let you cast things as long as you can succeed the casting roll or that it has a hit point cost or spell point cost or some other factor.

As for using it as a balancing point, I'd rather not if I can help. There's nothing wrong with being required in some way to track a resource, but to force someone into intense bookkeeping, I don't want a part of it - especially if I'm DMing, because it's most likely going to add to my load of things going on in the game, and I'm just going to ban it so I don't have to worry about whether its being tracked appropriately or not.
 

So, for a real 5e example:

Plane Shift is a very powerful spell and a highlight of the arcane caster's spell list. However, it does have a material component. While the average group considers the material component as an afterthought from just purchasing the right material from the average shop, the designers clearly consider the material component an actual challenge.

DMG pg 46:

"The plane Shift spell has two important limitations...crafting the fork is expensive (250g), but even the act of researching the spell can lead to adventure. "

By their own admission, matieral components are supposed to be an important limitation. Not only that, but the fork should be crafted and researched.

There are rules for crafting nonmagical items and researching information, but to many players, those rules are simply tedious. As a result, people ignore something the designers intended to be a substantial balance factor.

I'm essentially asking if you think this was a good move by the designers?

I dont think (personal, me, IMO) this counts as 'tedious'.

This shouldnt be a balance concern either, but its completely up to the DM to determine how common the materials are, and if the players can just walk into the local shop for the components to head to the Plane of Water, for example.

The concept of 'balance' to me is more 'why are you letting the Wizard free cast in the back, why isnt there opposing NPCs casting Counterspell?' or whatever.

Getting the right components, or finding the right spell, can be absolutely part of the story, the adventure, and its a trope as old as time.

If you just shortcut to the object of the hero's journey, you miss a pretty big part of the story.
 

I think the intention is the opposite. If the adventure requires planar travel, it will be provided to them as much as needed. The plane shift spell is merely additional power that a player can access.

I think there should never be any adventure that requires a certain spell or ability to continue to play.
If it is a sandbox and you run across a currently unassailable obstacle, I feel it's fine to have it and the PCs can come back. If it is a story-first setting, putting such a roadblock is a bad idea if the PCs aren't prearmed or aware they need the key ability/item.

As with all things, there's a time and a place. If it's going to bring the game to a dead halt, don't do it. Just keep in mind PCs are a creative bunch, and given half a chance, they'll find a way.
 

"Tedious" is a loaded word and means different things to different people.

I've never been fond of bookkeeping in an RPG, I never did assent to play the Accountant class. But I recognize the need for things like encumbrance, spell slots, quivers, (expensive) material components and the like. But there's different ways to approach each and different ways to make them appealing.

Many games use equipment slots rather than track pounds/coins carried (ex., A game might allow you to carry one Large item, three medium items, five small items and two special items).

Some games use a special roll or incorporate "ammo checks" into the attack roll (ex., nat 1 on d20 means you just used your last arrow or may move your equipment stores down a level, such as - plentiful -> some -> a handful -> out).

Some games don't worry about spell components (B/X), others may only care about expensive components (5E's spell focus, component pouch and spell components that cost specific gold). Some games don't use spell slots and let you cast things as long as you can succeed the casting roll or that it has a hit point cost or spell point cost or some other factor.

As for using it as a balancing point, I'd rather not if I can help. There's nothing wrong with being required in some way to track a resource, but to force someone into intense bookkeeping, I don't want a part of it - especially if I'm DMing, because it's most likely going to add to my load of things going on in the game, and I'm just going to ban it so I don't have to worry about whether its being tracked appropriately or not.
What exactly is "intense" bookkeeping? There is no objective definition.
 


I'm essentially asking if you think this was a good move by the designers?
no, because most people just ignore it, as you wrote, and then your ‘carefully crafted’ balance disappears.

Even if you were to keep track, 250gp is not exactly breaking the bank, so it is not really limiting anything and does reinforce the instinct to ignore the components as nothing special
 

no, because most people just ignore it, as you wrote, and then your ‘carefully crafted’ balance disappears.

Even if you were to keep track, 250gp is not exactly breaking the bank, so it is not really limiting anything and does reinforce the instinct to ignore the components as nothing special
It works if money means something and you don't let the players ignore restrictions. This is a DM problem.
 

It works if money means something and you don't let the players ignore restrictions. This is a DM problem.
I rather find a different way for this than components, they are somewhere between a nuisance and tedium, depending on the case.

I assume most people simply ignore them for that reason, and that is why to me they are a bad design
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top