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

[Saeviomagy]

This is probably true. But just to make sure I understand....do you mean balanced between player options like classes and such? Like if one of the classes was so much better a choice than the others....is that what you mean?

Yes.

If the party consists of hulk, thing and colossus, then the DM can basically throw anything at them and know that they'll all perform more or less evenly.

If it consists of hulk, thor and hawkeye, then he has to make sure that his giant flying worm doesn't eat hawkeye in a single bite and then fly around in the sky taunting hulk.

It also applies to in play decisions though. If it's always easier to resolve a problem in a specific way then it becomes a problem unless that matches the fiction you are trying to emulate. D&D for instance has a history of making running away a very bad tactic, in fairly solid opposition to a lot of fantasy fiction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes.

If the party consists of hulk, thing and colossus, then the DM can basically throw anything at them and know that they'll all perform more or less evenly.

If it consists of hulk, thor and hawkeye, then he has to make sure that his giant flying worm doesn't eat hawkeye in a single bite and then fly around in the sky taunting hulk.

It also applies to in play decisions though. If it's always easier to resolve a problem in a specific way then it becomes a problem unless that matches the fiction you are trying to emulate. D&D for instance has a history of making running away a very bad tactic, in fairly solid opposition to a lot of fantasy fiction.

Very true. I agree with that. This is why I think imbalance most likely comes from some kind of "flaw" in the application of the rules rather than the rules themselves. If the DM only challenges the party in certain ways, that's a big problem. Or it could be, at least, if not all PCs are designed to face that type of challenge.

A rules system could lend itself to imbalance, but I think that it would still require help at that from the players and/or the DM. And I don't think 5E really falls in that category.

 

[Pickles III]

Very true. I agree with that. This is why I think imbalance most likely comes from some kind of "flaw" in the application of the rules rather than the rules themselves. If the DM only challenges the party in certain ways, that's a big problem. Or it could be, at least, if not all PCs are designed to face that type of challenge.

A rules system could lend itself to imbalance, but I think that it would still require help at that from the players and/or the DM. And I don't think 5E really falls in that category.

It really doesn't unless you consider "choosing a particular feat" to be help from the players.

Any game that uses armour as damage reduction tends to fall into imbalance as soon as one character tries to be a bit tanky. They usually become so resistant nothing even threatens them that is not super deadly to the other characters. (eg in the IKRPG). This is not like players of Pathfinder fishing though dozens of supplements to find some unconsidered OP combo.

What you actually have is the players & DM have to actively help keep the game on the level. As far as being designed to face different sorts of challenge I do not want turn taking in different challenges. It's boring for everybody to sit back to watch while each character shines. This is fine in small amounts but mostly I want players to all participate if a bit less effectively from time to time. As DM I do not want to have to consider the capabilities of every PC for every encounter to make sure they are all challenged but none are incidentally irrelevant or KIA.

That said I agree with your conclusion. IME at lowish levels 5e is balanced enough that I can just hit the players with whatever I fancy & let them worry about it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It really doesn't unless you consider "choosing a particular feat" to be help from the players.

Any game that uses armour as damage reduction tends to fall into imbalance as soon as one character tries to be a bit tanky. They usually become so resistant nothing even threatens them that is not super deadly to the other characters. (eg in the IKRPG). This is not like players of Pathfinder fishing though dozens of supplements to find some unconsidered OP combo.

What you actually have is the players & DM have to actively help keep the game on the level. As far as being designed to face different sorts of challenge I do not want turn taking in different challenges. It's boring for everybody to sit back to watch while each character shines. This is fine in small amounts but mostly I want players to all participate if a bit less effectively from time to time. As DM I do not want to have to consider the capabilities of every PC for every encounter to make sure they are all challenged but none are incidentally irrelevant or KIA.

That said I agree with your conclusion. IME at lowish levels 5e is balanced enough that I can just hit the players with whatever I fancy & let them worry about it.

Well, feats are considered optional for a reason. But I don't agree that they are all that imbalancing to the game. Yes, they make a character better at one area of the game (usually combat), but that doesn't make the other characters ineffective. It also doesn't take away the fact that they get to pick a feat of their own.

So just as a martial character like a fighter may be better at combat than the wizard, the wizard is balanced by having spells that grant him versatility, it's the same with feats. If someone takes Heavy Armor Mastery, it makes them more durable in combat, sure, but other characters can select other feats to balance things out.

I suppose that my view of this is influenced heavily by the fact that my gaming group has always expected there to be one or two PCs that excel at fighting compared to the others. We don't expect that parity because the game tends to balance things in other ways.

 

[nswanson27]

Well, feats are considered optional for a reason. But I don't agree that they are all that imbalancing to the game. Yes, they make a character better at one area of the game (usually combat), but that doesn't make the other characters ineffective. It also doesn't take away the fact that they get to pick a feat of their own.

So just as a martial character like a fighter may be better at combat than the wizard, the wizard is balanced by having spells that grant him versatility, it's the same with feats. If someone takes Heavy Armor Mastery, it makes them more durable in combat, sure, but other characters can select other feats to balance things out.

I suppose that my view of this is influenced heavily by the fact that my gaming group has always expected there to be one or two PCs that excel at fighting compared to the others. We don't expect that parity because the game tends to balance things in other ways.

This has been my impression as well. I have played with characters who were decidedly weak, but they were like warlocks who didn't pick hex or any any attack spells on their spell list.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I'd add the following options (since they are the ones I use!):

(e) Provide strong rewards for in-game engagement through factional allegiances/favours earned that express differently for the different classes.
(f) Provide guidance to both the players and DM on how (and why) to grow breadth of capability as opposed to depth of specialization through rewards earned in play -- be that types of magical items kept, supernatural abilities gained, or mundane abilities such as low justice, landowning, titles, and leadership.
(g) Provide guidance to the DM regarding circumstantial effects on social endeavours from reputation, social position, and gossip.
(h) Provide guidance to the DM on how (and why) to include other gifted or leveled NPCs for the PCs to exploit as part of the setting. The discussion should touch on the pathological versions (DMPC, PCs as errand boys, PCs aren't needed) as well as discuss hirelings, cohorts, specialists-for-hire, allies, and rivals.
(i) Provide guidance to the DM and players wrt placing and leveraging environmental resources.

I find interesting that in the recently released Loremaster's Guide for Adventures in Middle-Earth there are sections devoted to each one of these. I especially find it interesting since, while AiME is a 5e OGL game, it doesn't use the 5e spellcasting system (though it does contain advice if you will like to include it in your game).

So I wonder, if the designers were not trying to balance casters and non-casters what was their goal in including all this advice? Perhaps as a replacement for spellcasting? Or maybe just trying to add more meat to the three pillars, particularly the noncombat pillars of the game? Both? Neither?

It looks like you aren't alone in recognizing these areas could be expanded.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Exactly.

Exactly? As in 'exactly the opposite?'

I don't think that the "default setting" of most games is that imbalanced. It takes either pretty dedicated effort or pretty crazy circumstance for things to be that imbalanced.

'Most games' of course, is a pretty broad sweep - most games are probably at least fair (even if they're imbalanced, the same choices are available to everyone).
D&D has never been so well-balanced that you'd have to work /that/ hard at breaking it, especially from the DM side. And in most versions of D&D, including 5e, you have to make an effort (rulings/variants/manufactured situations/'DM Force'/etc on the DM side, and/or restraint on the player side) or stick to a prescribed mode of play (6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest 'day' &c) to get it to much balance at all. Sure, many of us make that effort as a matter of course and after decades of playing the game we may not even notice it anymore, or, if we do, just consider it a fact-of-life rather than a flaw that could be corrected.

I mean, I suppose it may vary depending on what we mean by "imbalanced"

The working definition I prefer is maximizing the choices available while also keeping as many of those choices as possible both meaningful & viable. So, examples of 'imbalanced' would include having many classes of which only a handful are 'Tier 1,' or having many possible EL n Encounters some of which would likely be rollovers for a level n party, while others would be possible TPKs, and the rest a range between, with very few actually being the intended level of difficulty.

but the most likely meaning to me is having one PC that totally outshines the others.

That's a possible consequence. Another would be having a party where everyone is playing the same class with very similar build decisions, because it's just that much better than all the other possibilities (as opposed to because we just all feel like playing thieves).

When that happens, it's usually a case of one player knowing how to min/max and another not. That's like saying basketball is unbalanced because you put Lebron up against a 5 year old.

Min/maxers and new/casual players routinely play in the same groups, while 5 year-olds are rarely allowed to play professional sports. So that's a pretty bad analogy.

I think imbalance most likely comes from some kind of "flaw" in the application of the rules rather than the rules themselves. If the DM only challenges the party in certain ways, that's a big problem. Or it could be, at least, if not all PCs are designed to face that type of challenge.

Sounds like shifting it in a purely semantic way. The DM /could/ avoid imbalances by always running in a carefully-calculated way to spotlight each player's PC in turn, even though one of them can do everything the other two can, and one of the remainder is for more powerful than the other. That would mean using very different, tailored challenges, possibly resorting to implausible circumstances and even railroading. That /is/ always challenging the party in the same way, as opposed to running the world 'status-quo,' or just running whatever you like, as you could with a better-balanced party.

A rules system could lend itself to imbalance, but I think that it would still require help at that from the players and/or the DM. And I don't think 5E really falls in that category.

D&D generally has lent itself to imbalance enough for imbalances to occur as a matter of course unless the DM and players approach it 'just so' (something many of us have been doing automatically for decades, thanks to playing it so darn much). 5e is certainly less imbalanced than 3.5/PF (intentionally designed to 'reward system mastery,' which makes a virtue of imbalance). 'Balance' relative to the quixotic classic game more debatable. (Really, 5e and the classic game are presented in such a way that even definitively defining their systems in an objective way is iffy, let alone evaluating them for any trace of balance). Obviously, 4e is the outlier, being the most robustly balanced (though far from perfectly balanced - look at all the 'chaff' in the list of feats, for instance).

 

[Corwin]

But as [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] mentioned, this is not universally enjoyed. Even back in the day not everyone used henchmen (or hirelings) as part of the game; and I think it's even less common to use them in contemporary D&D play.

Sorry, you lost me here. What henchmen (or hirelings)?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sorry, you lost me here. What henchmen (or hirelings)?

'Back in the day,' whole section in the DMG on them? Charisma gave you max henchmen and a loyalty modifier?

Apparently, really back in the day, in Gygax's basement, it was standard operating procedure for every PC to hire mercenaries and recruit (hopefully) loyal henchmen to prowl through the dungeons under Castle Greyhawk with them. (Because, y'know, those PCs were prettymuch all magic-users and needed someone to take the hits.)

1e was written as if players were going to do that incessantly. I've actually rarely seen it, even back in the early 80s. I did go to the trouble of recruiting a full party worth of Henchmen for my high-CHA Druid PC once, though (then there was Animal Friendship, then there was Name Level when you got lower-level Druid followers). And three of the PCs in the long AD&D campaign I ran had love interests and one an annoying side-kick NPC, who adventured with them at least a bit. One also claimed a keep at 9th level, and had a bunch of NPCs taking care of it for him.
More recently, I've had 1 player since 2010 who was pretty enthused about the idea of having NPC helpers... no, wait, 2 - in the playtest one player was psyched to play a Noble since it gave her servants. And, really, in 5e it should be a winning strategy because numbers tell so heavily...

But, yeah, old-school henchmen/hirelings, and NPC hangers-on in general, have never been hugely popular IMX. I have to agree with pemerton on that.

 

[Corwin]

'Back in the day,' whole section in the DMG on them? Charisma gave you max henchmen and a loyalty modifier?

Apparently, really back in the day, in Gygax's basement, it was standard operating procedure for every PC to hire mercenaries and recruit (hopefully) loyal henchmen to prowl through the dungeons under Castle Greyhawk with them. (Because, y'know, those PCs were prettymuch all magic-users and needed someone to take the hits.)

1e was written as if players were going to do that incessantly. I've actually rarely seen it, even back in the early 80s. I did go to the trouble of recruiting a full party worth of Henchmen for my high-CHA Druid PC once, though (then there was Animal Friendship, then there was Name Level when you got lower-level Druid followers). And three of the PCs in the long AD&D campaign I ran had love interests and one an annoying side-kick NPC, who adventured with them at least a bit. One also claimed a keep at 9th level, and had a bunch of NPCs taking care of it for him.
More recently, I've had 1 player since 2010 who was pretty enthused about the idea of having NPC helpers... no, wait, 2 - in the playtest one player was psyched to play a Noble since it gave her servants. And, really, in 5e it should be a winning strategy because numbers tell so heavily...

But, yeah, old-school henchmen/hirelings, and NPC hangers-on in general, have never been hugely popular IMX. I have to agree with pemerton on that.

Having played every. single. edition of D&D, which means at least as long as anyone here, I still have no idea what this has to do with anything I initially said or subsequently asked. So what are you trying to tell us with all this ancient history?