D&D 5E Basic already surprising us.

[drjones]

I have never in my life played a D&D game where the players were are odds with each other over characters being balanced against each other. The players are on a team. They work together and compliment each other or they die. Hell, the DM is on the same team in that everyone at the table is there to have fun and tell a cool story that they all enjoy.

Wizards are more dangerous opponents than equal level fighters? That must be why smart monsters kill the dang wizard first. So far in playing Basic the Wizzy has been a potent glass canon. Killed a few goblins (though not as many as any of the fighters) and then was the only character to die when the fighters were split from the party.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I like bounded accuracy a lot. It's one of the better parts of the game. But it's an absolute failure when you combine it with the fact that after level nine, the ONLY thing a fighter gets are bigger numbers.

It's also worth considering that fighters get more ability score increases/feats than any other class. And that gives you a lot of options for both customizing and increasing power. The number of ability score increases granted by a class is a part of the class's design balance.

 

[pemerton]

Inequality is easily achieved in even a carefully-balanced class/level game by either deleting class features or levels from the dis-favored class.

<snip>

The only trick when running profound, openly imbalanced options like this is getting anyone to play the disfavored character type. You might have to introduce mundane NPCs, if you can't find masochistic enough players to do so (which is not out of the question, there /are/ players like that, who feel somehow ennobled as 'real roleplayers' when they willfully choose to play a character that can't pull it's own weight). That's why imbalanced games so often have 'trap options,' that look good on the surface, but which system-masters can identify as inferior - that way you get the desired mix of superior and inferior characters.

That's an interesting take on the logic of "trap options".

 

[Jack the Lad]

The Hulk is a superhero. The wizard is not a superhero. He is governed by the mechanics of his race. He abides by the laws and limitations of magic. Giving a D&D character superhero powers means you move the game to mythical or supernatural proportions - definitely not centred around medieval Europe (perhaps Ancient Europe).

I feel compelled to respond to this - it's really and truly baffling to me.

You define being able to jump a long distance as 'superhero powers' when the Fighter does it.

But you believe that the Wizard - who can:

• fly
• teleport
• stop time
• turn invisible
• alter reality with a wish
• read minds
• enlarge or shrink themselves
• walk on walls
• turn into gas
• breathe underwater
• summon up eldritch beings and bind them to her will
• turn people into animals
• animate objects
• control the weather
• cause earthquakes
• travel to different planes
• mind control people
• kill with a word
• call meteors down out of the sky

...does not have superhero powers, because she abides by the laws and limitations of magic. Those laws and limitations, insofar as they exist, are not immutable facts of life; they're the game rules. They're same things that people are suggesting be changed to allow the Fighter to have more versatile and impactful abilities.

You believe that a Fighter able to jump further than any real human being is a superhero, and can single-handedly 'move the game to mythical or supernatural proportions'.

You believe that a game in which Wizards are doing the things I listed above - or even if we bring the scale down and say in which a Wizard is casting a fireball at an orc - or even if we take Wizards out of the equation entirely and have a party comprised entirely of Fighters - is not mythical or supernatural.

Mike Mearls himself has stated outright that The Fighter Exists in a World of Myth, Fantasy, and Legend. Dragons, orcs etc simply did not exist in Medieval (or indeed Ancient) Europe.

D&D is not only both mythical and supernatural in scope and content from top to bottom, it allows spellcasters to become far more powerful than any character of myth or legend.

Consider Odin. Not just a god, but the Allfather of the gods - chief among them, and ruler of Asgard. In the Ljóðatal he enumerates 18 charms that he knows. Consider how many of them are easily and directly reproduced by spells - charming maidens (charm person), bursting free of bonds (freedom of movement), speaking to the dead (speak with dead), controlling the weather (control weather), etc. Consider how far beyond these a D&D caster's abilities go.

Consider that in the same branch of mythology we have Beowulf, who was specifically cited by Mike Mearls in the Fighter Design Goals article as one of the inspirations for the 5e Fighter.

Beowulf takes part in a swimming race - across a sea, fully armed and armoured, for 5 days and 5 nights - during which he kills 9 sea monsters. Beowulf deliberately fights the monster Grendel unarmed and unarmoured - to be fair, as the monster does not have either. When Beowulf grabs his arm, Grendel is terrified - he's never met anyone so strong. Beowulf proceeds to tear it off entirely, as we all know. Later, he holds his breath for an entire day when swimming to the bottom of the lake to fight Grendel's mother. He wields an enormous sword from the age of giants to kill her. He swims across another sea while carrying 30 suits of armour. When he fights the Dragon, his sword breaks on its skin, and the narrator informs us that it's Beowulf's fate for edged weapons to serve him poorly - he is too strong, and they break when he hits things with them.

And yet here we are, with a Fighter who jumps a maximum of 5 feet further than a non-Fighter of the same strength. A Fighter who has to take a feat to gain proficiency with unarmed attacks, and deals d4 damage with them even if she does. A Fighter who can, at his utmost, absolute peak strength - lift half as much weight as the current real world record.

 

[The Hitcher]

I feel compelled to respond to this - it's really and truly baffling to me.

You define being able to jump a long distance as 'superhero powers' when the Fighter does it.

But you believe that the Wizard - who can:

• fly
• teleport
• stop time
• turn invisible
• alter reality with a wish

*snip*

This is a very compelling argument. The "mechanical balance" arguments do nothing for me, but I like this argument. I like you for making this argument, this way. And if I was designing a game of mythical heroes from scratch, I'd totally be taking your argument into account, and making character options that make more sense on that level.

But D&D is D&D...

[And then I wrote a really long and general post to put here that kind of outgrew the thread, so I've started a new one. If you're interested in the thought-hounds your post unleashed in my head, you can chase after them to their new home.]

 

[Sadras]

You define being able to jump a long distance as 'superhero powers' when the Fighter does it.

Yes I do, and it was the 'distance as far as the eye can see' just so we are clear.

But you believe that the Wizard - who can:

• fly
• teleport
• stop time
• turn invisible
• alter reality with a wish
• read minds
• enlarge or shrink themselves
• walk on walls
• turn into gas
• breathe underwater
• summon up eldritch beings and bind them to her will
• turn people into animals
• animate objects
• control the weather
• cause earthquakes
• travel to different planes
• mind control people
• kill with a word
• call meteors down out of the sky

...does not have superhero powers, because she abides by the laws and limitations of magic. Those laws and limitations, insofar as they exist, are not immutable facts of life; they're the game rules. They're same things that people are suggesting be changed to allow the Fighter to have more versatile and impactful abilities.

Yes, game rules of magic are permitted to break the normal statutory limitations of man or beast. Magic does that and has the right to do that, by its very own name. And a DM is advised that he can tone down or up magic in a setting to suit the campaign's needs, what he does with more difficulty is tone down supernatural/innate powers to mundane characters.

You believe that a Fighter able to jump further than any real human being is a superhero, and can single-handedly 'move the game to mythical or supernatural proportions'.

Yes. It actively changes the game style much like 4e impressed a power system (like a card game) on its users.
It is much easier to work on a basic module and tack on a module which reworks the fighter to supernatural/herculean powers. You can disagree with me all you want, that is my view.

You believe that a game in which Wizards are doing the things I listed above - or even if we bring the scale down and say in which a Wizard is casting a fireball at an orc - or even if we take Wizards out of the equation entirely and have a party comprised entirely of Fighters - is not mythical or supernatural.

When mundane men, and I use the term men loosely given we have dwarves, elves...etc, are able to break limitations without the use of magic - then yes I think we have advanced to mythical and supernatural proportions.

Mike Mearls himself has stated outright that The Fighter Exists in a World of Myth, Fantasy, and Legend.

And Mike Mearls also promised us a DMG which I imagine will have those mythical and legendary powers in modules.

Dragons, orcs etc simply did not exist in Medieval (or indeed Ancient) Europe.

So many straws everywhere...did I mistakenly state that the entire Beastiary was devised based on Medieval Europe?
But nevertheless...here is my attempt on Dragons.
St George and Dragon (Medieval)
Scylla (Ancient) - type of Hydra but close enough.

D&D is not only both mythical and supernatural in scope and content from top to bottom, it allows spellcasters to become far more powerful than any character of myth or legend.

Sure, I don't disagree. Hence the many pages of advice in every DMG for the DM to consider the appropriate level of magic in a campaign.

Consider Odin....(snip)...Consider that in the same branch of mythology we have Beowulf, who was specifically cited by Mike Mearls in the Fighter Design Goals article as one of the inspirations for the 5e Fighter.

Considered, answered above...Mike Mearls...DMG....Modules.

And yet here we are, with a Fighter who jumps a maximum of 5 feet further than a non-Fighter of the same strength. A Fighter who has to take a feat to gain proficiency with unarmed attacks, and deals d4 damage with them even if she does. A Fighter who can, at his utmost, absolute peak strength - lift half as much weight as the current real world record.

That is a design anomaly/error call it what you want. It is more relevant to compare how much the fighter can lift in game compared to others in game than comparing that to results of the real world, cause then you might as well compare hit points, fatigue, resting, HD mechanic, travelling and the like.

Now, consider all the mystique, power and awe I have given to magic. Consider that mundane's have but one saving throw to resist the effects of a magic spell. Now consider the Fighter who is able to shake off the arcane - hence his additional saving throw. That is pretty impressive, for me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have never in my life played a D&D game where the players were are odds with each other over characters being balanced against each other.

The inherent weakness of anecdotal evidence, and our inability to verify any anecdote due to the nature of the medium, aside, there are a number of ways to avoid such problems - apart from just looking the other way 'not noticing' them, of course.

Probably the most common is that the player who is consistently disappointed in his character simply changes characters, leaves the group, or exits the hobby. Much less common, but still something you hear about, is the player who revels in the 'RP opportunities' of an inferior character. Then, of course, the other players can find themselves trying to build up or give opportunities to shine to the less capable characters. 'System masters' at the table can also simply exercise restraint in designing their characters and help others build more optimal characters at the same time. And, there are all sorts of things the DM can do - thoughtfully or instinctively - to challenge or reign in overpowered characters and highlight what contributions the lesser manage to make.

Obviously, some of those are worse outcomes than others, and many of them depend on a certain level of selfless benevolence and system mastery, not to mention some talent for diplomacy, so you don't make it /obvious/ that you're shoring up the performance of someone's character, which, obviously, some folks could fine insulting.


You're really more likely to see a player and the DM at odds over balance issues - as the DM tries to moderate the impact of an imbalanced character via house rules, adventure design, off the cuff rulings, and whatever other tools he can bring to bear - and the offending player being compensated for feels he's being unjustly singled out, and starts challenging those attempts.

 

[Sadras]

You mean Paragons Paths/Epic Destinies, or specific classes at those levels? Not that 'balance problem' even means the same thing in the context of 4e. ...

Yes you're right, my bad. Paths/Destinies.
Speaking of 4e balance, my 4e experience as a player was lousy and I played a Fighter and felt continuously outdone and out-powered, even in combat, which was worse. We had a poor DM, but I felt my contribution in combat was completely pitiful.

 

[billd91]

D&D is not only both mythical and supernatural in scope and content from top to bottom, it allows spellcasters to become far more powerful than any character of myth or legend.

Consider Odin. Not just a god, but the Allfather of the gods - chief among them, and ruler of Asgard. In the Ljóðatal he enumerates 18 charms that he knows. Consider how many of them are easily and directly reproduced by spells - charming maidens (charm person), bursting free of bonds (freedom of movement), speaking to the dead (speak with dead), controlling the weather (control weather), etc. Consider how far beyond these a D&D caster's abilities go.

But is this really a good comparison? Do we have complete information on what Odin could do or do we just have a bunch of disjointed stories here and there in which he does whatever it is the storyteller wanted him to be able to do?

I think those of us interested in fantasy genre role playing gaming want characters to be able to do many of those things - sure. So we come up with ways for certain characters to be able to do them. But I think supporting a game that sprawls beyond just Norse myth (or any other specific mythological tradition) and the needs of a game also sprawl beyond just the specific abilities included in a story - which are there most likely to prove a point or set up a specific situation rather than devise a comprehensive structure for what a god like Odin can do. So I can't say that I really consider the argument that wizards can do more than Gandalf, Merlin, or Odin very compelling. Maybe they can do more than the stories have Gandalf, Merlin, or Odin actually doing. But what they are actually doing is an incomplete snapshot at best.

 

[TwoSix]

I have never in my life played a D&D game where the players were are odds with each other over characters being balanced against each other. The players are on a team. They work together and compliment each other or they die. Hell, the DM is on the same team in that everyone at the table is there to have fun and tell a cool story that they all enjoy.

I haven't either. But I have been at tables where players complain that their character kind of sucks. I've been at tables where the wizard has gone out and done things solo while the other characters had to wait behind. (Heck, I've done it myself, and been at the other end as well.)