D&D 5E Balance of Power Problems in 5e: Self created?

[Dualazi]

I don't recall ever using the term "uptight" at any point, nor was I criticizing other ways to play the game. I'm well aware that the way my group plays is not for everyone. The point, which I guess you missed while frantically typing this defensive screed, was that it's okay to just have fun and not worry so much about imbalance. It's a game, not a full contact team sport. Not everyone has to produce equal results in every round, and not everyone has to fret about their DPR.

If you want to come off as moderate, probably shouldn’t refer to someone else’s points as “screed”.

Furthermore, the people who don’t care about balance shouldn’t care about people who do work for it, since they can evidently have fun either way, it’s a non-issue to you and yours regardless of how others react to it.

Much of the reason there is frustration with this is because of people spouting your mantra of “just have fun” without realizing that it’s not something people are able to control on a whim, and that their complaints may be entirely legitimate. There were many complaints of caster supremacy back in the 3.5 days and “just don’t think about it” is as useless and insulting now as it was then.

Lastly, yeah, actually, it is a team game. (and a contact one too, at least for the characters). So seeing your character have no point or no value to the team certainly does affect people’s enjoyment therein.

Is there anything this extreme in 5e? Thankfully no, at least in my experience, but having heard many of these “just don’t care” or “the DM can fix it” claims in the past, I find them an unsuitable defense for bad game design.

 

[pemerton]

it's okay to just have fun and not worry so much about imbalance

And it's also OK to try and engineer balance of some sort, so as to help have fun.

(And you didn't use the word "uptight", but you did tell people who care about balance to chill. Which presumably means you think they're wound up at the moment.)

Not everyone has to produce equal results in every round, and not everyone has to fret about their DPR.

I don't know what DPR has to do with anything. I didn't mention it. And [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]'s example is not about DPR. In terms of "pillars" it's primarily about exploration, and in terms of the dynamics of game play it's about who is able to drive the direction and content of that play.

 

[Lanefan]

Or, c) choose a game that isn't locked into niche protection.

Meh...I find niche protection vital in that without it characters tend to end up able to more or less do everything...at which point what do they need the party for?

Strong niche protection somewhat forces some interdependence within the (normally-well-rounded) party, which to me is a Good Thing.

In most of the D&D groups I played with the balance problems usually revolved around aggregate party power rather than bickering between players. Eventually, the DM would start having increasing difficultly balancing encounters and would start getting frustrated; this was a sign the campaign was coming to an end soon. If individual PCs were particularly powerful that breaking point might come sooner, but the main concern was presenting balanced encounters for the party. In short, it was more of a DM vs. party problem.

Or a DM vs. system problem; and I've hit the exact same wall a few times in the past. At some level or other every version of D&D starts to wobble, and eventually the wobbling gets unbearable; some - maybe a lot - of that wobbling is caused by aggregate party power.

Lanefan

 

[Ogre Mage]

Or a DM vs. system problem; and I've hit the exact same wall a few times in the past. At some level or other every version of D&D starts to wobble, and eventually the wobbling gets unbearable; some - maybe a lot - of that wobbling is caused by aggregate party power.

Back during our 3.X days, our group usually found that the "wobbling" started around Level 10. No 3.X or Pathfinder campaign I participated in lasted beyond Level 12. I didn't play enough of 4E to make a judgment. In 5E the balance seems to have held a little longer. In the two instances a 5E campaign reached high level, it started to lose balance around Level 12. The first ended at Level 14 and in the other instance when we reached Level 14 the DM decided to have us switch to low-level PCs as he took a break from planning high-level encounters. He promises we will come back to the high level game eventually. We'll see.

 

[Pickles III]

I am wondering how much this impacts concerns about the "bags of hit points" creatures. In other words, for those who are concerned that it is too easy to take down CR whatever creature, would they find the fight more satisfying without great weapon master, etc.? Just curious. I agree with what others have said as well, its only a real problem if you care. And that is just it...some people seem to care.

I think you are misunderstanding the issue with "bag of hit point" creatures. It is not that they are easy to take down it is that they are all interchangeable.

4e monsters would largely feel different to fight usually having some feature that differentiates them. 5e humanoids do this pretty well with each race having a characteristic that makes them distinctive, arguably better than 4e where there was a proliferation of types & a dilution of the race feel. Some "bosses" do with legendary actions or spell lists (though spell lists are a hassle in the other direction).

The sack of HP culprits are the middle level monsters from owl bears to giants which mostly just punch you & soak attacks.

 

[Nagol]

The OP is absolutely correct. Balance. which is most commonly argued in the form of dps/dpr, becomes less important with greater independence. It doesn't matter as much that guy 1 is doing X while guy 2 is doing Y when both are necessary for the party's success. Balance can only become a legitimate issue when a character becomes unnecessary.

I'm a big fan of the old spell-interruption rules. When those were removed the game lost a lot of tactical depth.

Only so long as everyone agrees on what to do. Here's an 3.5e anecdote illustrating what I'm trying to get at:

The group has cleared an ancient monastery of bandits and are doing a final pass to clean up/check for secrets before heading out. They notice via the Druid's Detect Magic that one of the mosaics in the living areas is a magic item. The Wizard casts Identify and discovers it is a teleport link to somewhere and learns the command word. The Wizard has other interests he wants to get to, but the group decides to scout it out.

A quick recon of the arrival point area doesn't find a matching magic portal to bring them back to the surface, but by talking to a friendly spirit they discover it is a forgotten city of the dwarves lost since the Great War. The Druid, the Fighter, and the Barbarian strongly want to explore further, the Wizard strongly wants to leave and the other two PCs have no opinion. The Wizard is the only character with long distance travel capability. He announces he is leaving and anyone who doesn't want to be trapped with unknown dangers with no known escape route are welcome to join him. They return home.

 

[Nagol]

Meh...I find niche protection vital in that without it characters tend to end up able to more or less do everything...at which point what do they need the party for?

Strong niche protection somewhat forces some interdependence within the (normally-well-rounded) party, which to me is a Good Thing.

<snip>

You can get that in games without niche protection too although it does require some level of cooperation and attention from the players. The great joy of niche-less games is that if the group notices a deficiency, anyone can respond to bolster the group in that area which generally means the player with the most interest will take it on. It also means the group can achieve at least modest redundancy in those areas where loss of capability has a strong chance of group failure (like healing, travel, or environmental survival).

Rather than niche protection, what I look for is games that reward specialization over being a generalist. You'll get your interdependence if the most effective type of character is a specialist.

 

[Ahrimon]

Yeah. I seem to recall reading a story a long time ago, I think they even made a movie about it, where a bunch of warrior dwarves realized they had no burglar. So they "recruited" a [halfling] that could help with the stealthy stuff they planned to do at a dragon's lair.

Even a bunch of thick-headed dwarven warriors can see when they are short a necessary skillset.

I recall a movie where a noble warrior quested for a magical weapon, recruited other warriors, and then they all captured magical mounts to face off against a terrible evil that would transport it's fortress to a new part of the world every morning. They traveled halfway around the world in a day, no wizard required.

 

[Pickles III]

I recall a movie where a noble warrior quested for a magical weapon, recruited other warriors, and then they all captured magical mounts to face off against a terrible evil that would transport it's fortress to a new part of the world every morning. They traveled halfway around the world in a day, no wizard required.

I think you are making the point. DM needed to provide magic weapons & mounts for the warriors. Wizards just use a spell.

 

[Krachek]

The game itself doesn't care about class/character imbalance. The designers do, somewhat. Many players at individual tables care.

The imbalance I've seen has less to do with inflicting damage in combat than it does with overcoming challenges in the other pillars of gameplay.

Let's take a hypothetical situation:

The DM picks up a adventure for his mid-to-high level group (say 7-9th level). The adventure requires the PC to discover the whereabouts of the BBEG, travel there under time constraint, launch an assault on his underwater base of operations, and has a final battle inside an iceberg that inflicts continuous cold damage on anyone unprepared. The adventure is designed to exploit the abilities of a well-rounded group of 4-6 PCs with at least one martial combat machine, one arcane caster, one divine caster, and one skill-based PC.

Scenario 1: the group is well-rounded. The adventure plays fine. Divine and arcane casters handle the discovery, travel, and life support needs of the group.
Scenario 2: the group is composed only of divine casters. Discovery, travel, assault are fine. Traps and alarms are triggered, but survivable. The final battle is a little tricky with the reduction in combat performance.
Scenario 3: the group is composed only of arcane casters. Discovery is a bit harder. Travel and assault are fine. Secondary tactics like summoning prove very useful during the assault to limit damage. The final assault fails because the environmental damage takes its toll. The PCs manage to escape with the last of their spells rather than TPK.
Scenario 4: the group is composed of martial combatants and skill-based classes only. Discovery is a challenge that ends up burning a lot of time. Travel duration exceeds the available time so the mission fails. That's OK though because even if the group managed to reach the underwater base, they can't survive the trip to the entrance and the environmental damage inside the iceberg would likely cause a TPK since escape options for the group are limited. The actual assault and final fight would have been a breeze though, should the PCs be handed a route to it!

You forget that DnD is an heroic game. The pc are the right heroes the world need.
with this mentality most heroic tales in book and movie would have failed.