D&D (2024) Can we have a discussion about the assumptions we make in terms of balance?

[aco175]

I find that the designers have one idea and things fit to that. The initial classes are fair enough as base models and then the graph of fairness splits wildly once you add feats and multiclassing. Cross over how some classes can use powers from other classes and add legacy classes that maybe do not fit.

Creating encounters with one group of PCs and then another can be the same thing. A base model group can take standard encounters as presented in the book fine and another more upgraded party might need more monster/encounter design to be the same threat.

There is also some things I find that I do in terms of balancing when I DM for one group over another. My brother and father have been playing with me for over 30 years, so I know their skill and tendencies. I recently DMd for a group of scouts ages 10-13 who might have played only a little or not at all. What the two groups can do and the tactics and decisions. Even group leadership and such is different. Some encounters and roleplay are changed knowingly or on the fly to keep the game running.

 

[Stalker0]

One assumption we often make is assuming all monsters in the MM are used “equally”. For example con saves are considered the worse save to use because a large number of monsters in the MM have high con saves.

However a more accurate (and much harder to calculate) model would look at the average frequency of use. If the kobold for example is used a lot in the average campaign, well then con saves start to look better, and dex saves worse.

 

[tetrasodium]

When we analyze classes and compare them to one another, we often make assumptions because we can't mathematically model everything to the minute detail. For small, isolated features, I think there's potential for sloppy assumptions, but when we make sweeping generalizations based on multiple assumptions, I think we should handle them with better scrutiny.

One such example I have is the assumption of Feats and Multiclassing. We assume feats and multiclassing is a valid assumption, and there's a few reasons why, but when we really think about them, there's some discrepancies like how they're likely undercooked and that's why they favor some classes better than others.

Another assumption is how often or little a character gets hit. There's ideas like "ranged characters rarely get targeted, melee characters always get targeted." But we're making assumptions on a specific enemy type that might not be consistent with play.

We don't have to be bogged down by these examples, if you have an assumption you see shared when discussing the game that you feel should be scrutinized more in-depth, you're more than welcome to add to this thread.

I think this also hits on a problem often present in quibbling. Alice will say something she considers to be generally true & bob will but but but to split hairs in a manner that doesn't meaningfully change the point she made. Back when ranges were shorter shooting into melee was realistically a thing to worry about & having to take pains in avoiding AoOs while movement was more of an issue than the current only when leaving a hostile's reach ranged characters frequently got targeted because there were more meaningful contributions from ranged monsters before death saves.

Now in 5e yes technically they get targeted too, but it's not meaningful in any way shy of the GM deciding to smite them for whatever reason. It makes the whole exercise in hairsplitting little more than a distraction from the point Alice was making because changing her assumption makes for no significant changes to the point.

 

[overgeeked]

The worst assumption we make is that classes cannot be and should not be balanced. Classes can and should be balanced against each other. This is not a sport, there is no quarterback to linemen analogy. This is not chess, there is no queen and pawn analogy. It's a game. With mechanics. And fairly simple math. Classes should be balanced against each other. It's not hard to do, but a lot of people are incredibly invested in keeping this particular sacred cow in the game.

 

[Scribe]

The worst assumption we make is that classes cannot be and should not be balanced. Classes can and should be balanced against each other. This is not a sport, there is no quarterback to linemen analogy. This is not chess, there is no queen and pawn analogy. It's a game. With mechanics. And fairly simple math. Classes should be balanced against each other. It's not hard to do, but a lot of people are incredibly invested in keeping this particular sacred cow in the game.

Symmetrical balance or asymmetrical?
Balanced within a party dynamic, or solo?
All classes equally skilled in all pillars, or with differences and emphasis?
Potentially balanced, or can players build for a specific focus, which do we balance for?

I agree, it can be balanced, for a given definition of balanced.

My enhancement shaman (TBC WOW) was directly responsible for a massive portion of my groups DPS in a raid. I still contributed on some fights, in the top 5 of raid DPS before even calculating what I brought otherwise.

Should I still have an opportunity to be #1 despite the buffs I'm bringing to a raid, which the Rogue or Warrior, or Warlock, is not?

What if I am using all the consumables possible? What if I'm min/maxing my gear?

What assumptions are we going to make to determine what is balanced?

 

[Kurotowa]

Another failure state to watch out for is fight sims that only test for 1v1 single target encounters. When I was an active MMO raider, you'd see the sim crowd put out their rankings after a new patch dropped a bunch of balance changes. And then a month later we'd get the actual play rankings from the new raid, and they were always different. Maybe that raid, the raid designs included multiple fights with two or three boss councils, so classes that could do cleave damage were highly advantaged. Maybe there were several bosses with scripted periods where the boss wasn't attackable, and classes that generated resources passively instead of actively were far ahead. But there was always some encounter design factor that rewarded certain classes over others, that the white room damage sims couldn't predict.

This is the sort of thing you can't ever make the sim take into account because it changes depending on the individual DM. Do they like to throw waves of minions into the mix, rewarding casters with big AoE spells? Do they like set pieces with boss monsters that have legendary saves, making martials and their reliable single target damage shine? Do they prepare complex terrain for their encounters, making PCs with ranged attacks or mobility features stand out? Each DM designs their fights differently, and that changes a lot.

(Also we're not even getting into the question of party composition. It's exciting to be the big damage dealer, but to steal a 4e-ism a good party needs defenders and leaders and controllers, not just strikers. Even if those roles aren't as codified in 5e, there's still both the ability and the need to have things like the high durability frontliner or the support caster who can help enable the focused damage dealers.)

This is not all to say that the 1v1 white room sims don't have their place. But it is a limited place, and their results need to be appraised as a specific data point and not as the ruling metric for overall performance.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

• Don't compare apples to oranges: spellcasters are not, and cannot be, equal to non-spellcasters. (For more information, click on any one of the dozen active threads discussing this topic.) So when you are balancing character classes with one another, make sure you are comparing half-casters to other half-casters, full-casters to other full-casters, non-casters to other non-casters. Things won't match otherwise.

This is absurd. Casters and non casters are both classes. All classes can be compared. Anything else is not balance. It is something distinctly different.

 

[CleverNickName]

This is absurd. Casters and non casters are both classes. All classes can be compared. Anything else is not balance. It is something distinctly different.

I was just offering advice to anyone who might find those comparisons a tad frustrating, that's all. If you've found a way to compare casters, half-casters, and non-casters in a satisfactory manner, by all means keep doing so. A lot of people (myself included) struggle with it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The worst assumption I see the most often is that casters always seem to have access to spells and always seem to have the right spell prepared.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you make this assumption remove spellcasters immediately.

Or remove non-casters.

You wouldn't need to ban any classes, at all, just 5 sub-classes from the PH.

As opposed to 8 classes and over 30 sub-classes.