D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Zardnaar]

Players voting for power is kind of like wanting free money.

Someone else pays for it (eg the DM).

It's more fame wrecking or disruptive where players care.

Going the other way players deliberately or inadvertently creating weak characters. Not talking about a fighter taking killed but more like a fighter with 12 or less strength/dexterity and not offsetting it.

Or those wizards/Druids who want to melee.

Throws party balance off just like the occasional out of control powergamer in a casual group.

Mechanical balance doesn't matter until it effects table dynamics.

 

[Scribe]

You misunderstand my intent.

I am not saying that each table will come up with its own answer. I am saying that there is a field of answers to pick from, and the game ultimately will (and must!) pick one of them. It will never be perfect--nothing is--but it is still quite possible for one answer to be better than another, and for there to be at least a short list of much-better-than-the-rest answers.

Right. Each table must define what balance means, and the game which fits that table.

This is 5.5 thread, balance is defined by the 5.5 books, and if it fits or not depends on the definitions of what 'balance' is for a given table.

Without a definition, there is no objective answer.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't think that actually acts as an argument against balance.

It just means that it's more complicated than an absolute diamond-perfect argument. You'll note that mischaracterizing one's opponents as demanding absolute perfection is a pretty common bad debate tactic.

Not in general necessarily, but my comment was referencing back to the various things in the OP that got shot down during the playtests.

For example... those people that liked wildshape templates did so in many ways because of balance reasons across shapes and PC power level-- their calculations worked out such that having set numbers at set levels was more "balanced" in their opinion than using animal statblocks. Those that didn't like the templates probably involved a lot of people for whom that supposed numeric balance of templated creatures was not as important compared to the various mechanical options one would get from having different animals at their fingertips. But even within those people, some would be very concerned that the animal statblocks that would be made available for wildshaping would be very balanced with each other while others would be less concerned because of the difficulty of trying to equate an animal's "special abilities" to numeric equivalents. And of course there would be entirely other players altogether for whom the way they ran combats in their own games... the numbers would never be on such a razor's edge between balanced and unbalanced that worrying about getting the numbers in "just the right combinations" was never even a consideration as to the viability of templates.

All of these groups of people felt that their opinion of what truly mattered for wildshaping was in the right. Even though everyone's feelings of what was "balanced" was different. And as a result, it would be impossible for WotC to create a single system that could cover ALL those bases and make everyone happy. Which is why it would almost always come down to popularity... go in the direction that had the most positive or least negative response.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Sneak Attack on your turn only (tried in UA and rejected)
No doubling critical Sneak Dice or Smite dice or other damage riders (tried in UA and rejected)
Paladin smite using a bonus action which effectively limits it to once a round on your turn (implemented but disliked)
Changing Warlock mechanics to a long rest (tried in UA and rejected)
Using statblocks for Wildshape (tried in UA and rejected)
Using statblocks for familiars (tried in UA and rejected)

Nerfing Sneak Attack would not be balancing things. Rogues already do weak damage with 2 sneak attacks per round. If WotC nerfed sneak attack but buffed damage elsewhere to compensate then THAT would've been balancing things, and I'll bet you it would've been popular (much like Stunning Strike and Assassin subclass had popular nerf/buff balancing done).

Nerfing Paladin smites to only once per turn is actually very popular, nearly every single person complaining about the changes agrees that balancing was necessary. The only complaint is that they nerfed it too hard and that it should've been "once per turn" without requiring a bonus action, just like Eldritch Smite. Balance is popular but nerfing a class into the ground is not.

Your final three, Warlock mechanics and statblocks for Wildshape and Familiars, are not balancing things either. These changes were not more powerful or less powerful, they were just a different design. They were unpopular because DnD players are incredibly resistant to change, and even though I liked these changes I would agree they don't solve any particularly glaring problem with the game so I can see why they were left alone.

 

[CreamCloud0]

If players were really that invested in balance, 4E would have been the most successful edition of all time. Instead, players care about how things feel; they want a lot of variety of experiences.

balance and flavour-feel aren't mutually exclusive desires, there were lots of things that caused 4e to have a mixed reception, you can't claim that it was all down to balance being a secondary concern.

 

[Voadam]

This neatly serves to point out that there's different types of balance:

--- balance between characters in here-and-now play situations (as in, how equal can everyone's contribution be in this combat or that social encounter or some other exploration piece)
--- balance between characters on a here-and-now mechanical level (as in, if you had the charactes all throw down against each other, would each one have a roughly equal chance of winning or would one of them win every time)
--- ongoing balance between the characters/party and the game world (is the party stomping everything it meets, or are they constantly getting stomped, or...)
--- medium-term balance between characters (i.e. are there certain types of adventures or opponents that put some classes at a big advantage or disadvantage in dealing with them and does the campaign give each character a chance to shine)
--- long-term balance between characters (as in the 1e Magic User, where you suck now in order to potentially dominate later, or the 1e Ranger where you dominate early but (IME anyway) really run out of steam as the levels go by)

When thinking about RPG balance I generally only think of the first two and consider them as generally the same thing.

In combat does everyone have the opportunity to meaningfully participate roughly equally in their specific individual way whether that is tanking, debuffing, buffing, controlling, striking, whatever.

That was the design goal in 3e, though often not achieved, it was fairly well achieved in 4e, and though not as tightly achieved in 5e as in 4e it was still decently achieved in 5e.

I don't care about who wins a fight between PCs, I care about them feeling they are all contributing parts of the team and not a bench player second string part of the team.

Balanced encounters for their level is not usually what I think people mean when they say RPG balance generally.

The medium term, consideration of having a variety of adventures where it can rotate who shines and who are knee-capped (anti-magic adventure, all urban, all wilderness, no equipment prisoner break out, all social, heavy undead, etc.) I don't really think of as part of the balance question except tangentially. Sidelining wizards and sorcerers entirely for an adventure with anti-magic is not something I would generally think of as a balancing factor that justifies them being baseline overpowered, or that monks do better in a no equipment jail break does not mean their baseline should be handicapped.

The long term one I think is generally a poor idea of balance because it does not apply so many times. One shot low level games. One shot high level games. Campaigns where characters die so low level weak characters never get off the ground, or beginning strong ones get traded in for ones who are stronger later. Also 1e halflings and thieves get the short end of the stick in general.

Similarly the 1e "balance" of gatekeeping strong character classes behind requirements for those who have randomly generated high stats which already make characters stronger.

 

[Zardnaar]

balance and flavour-feel aren't mutually exclusive desires, there were lots of things that causes 4e to have a mixed reception, you can't claim that it was all down to balance being a secondary concern.

I think the pursuit of balance alienated the playbase. They catered to a very small section of the online community.

The resulting playstyle tanked 4E. It was designed for people who enjoy knocking minis around a battlemat.

4E got some good stuff in it to mine for other D&Ds. Opt in being the big one.

 

[Lanefan]

When thinking about RPG balance I generally only think of the first two and consider them as generally the same thing.

In combat does everyone have the opportunity to meaningfully participate roughly equally in their specific individual way whether that is tanking, debuffing, buffing, controlling, striking, whatever.

What about non-combat play?

Also, what about the balance derived from some being social specialists while others are explorers and others mostly just fight?

I don't care about who wins a fight between PCs, I care about them feeling they are all contributing parts of the team and not a bench player second string part of the team.

Putting PCs 1v1, even hypothetically, is a real quick way of determining their relative power levels.

Balanced encounters for their level is not usually what I think people mean when they say RPG balance generally.

The post to which I was replying referenced exactly this sort of balance, in saying players in that game generally enjoyed rolling over their opponents but not everyone might.

The medium term, consideration of having a variety of adventures where it can rotate who shines and who are knee-capped (anti-magic adventure, all urban, all wilderness, no equipment prisoner break out, all social, heavy undead, etc.) I don't really think of as part of the balance question except tangentially. Sidelining wizards and sorcerers entirely for an adventure with anti-magic is not something I would generally think of as a balancing factor that justifies them being baseline overpowered, or that monks do better in a no equipment jail break does not mean their baseline should be handicapped.

To me, medium-term balance is important in that it allows a class to be more powerful at cost of sometimes being largely ineffective for a while.

Similarly the 1e "balance" of gatekeeping strong character classes behind requirements for those who have randomly generated high stats which already make characters stronger.

Another oft-forgotten but IMO quite good 1e balance mechanism is the staggered advancement rates between classes.

 

[DarkCrisis]

From my experience, the highs are higher when the players feel like they are in actual danger.

For example in an AD&D game: Group wandered into a Harpy lair. All but one was charmed in the first round. That player went 1 v 1 and saved the day. Like REALLY saved the day. Death for everyone was on the line.

I can't think of any situation since playing and running in 5E that was similar. One that sticks out in my mind though was the 5E group confronting a minor deity and kicking her butt. Even when she could lay a player out in one hit (if I hit and they failed a save).

I find myself having to add HP or cheating on saves etc to make to many 5E fights not a waste of time. I suppose at some point I'll figure out how to run it better. Maybe 5.5 will have it all figured out. Cant wait to see.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

(Responding to the OP)

Ultimately depends on what is meant by "balanced". I think most players want to occasionally feel powerful; and not to be constantly upstaged by other players. I think at least SOME players want to feel challenged; like they've accomplished something significant when they overcome problems.