D&D 5E D&D Next Design Goals (Article)

[pemerton]

Say, you're looking at illusion spells -- something like minor image.

To keep it true to the play experience that people expect out of D&D, you need to have a flexible, general kind of spell rule for that. It needs to be able to create an illusion of whatever the user desires.

<snip>

Of course, this makes it nearly impossible to balance. Sometimes that little low-level spell will negate an encounter. Sometimes it will have nearly no effect.

<snip>

It's not exactly like you can balance damage-per-round against that. It's effectively infinite damage sometimes, no damage other times, up to DM interpretation almost always.

What this suggests to me is that phantasmal force and similar spells occupy the same mechanical space as skills - in particular, social skills and the like - rather than attacks. But no version of D&D has really grappled with self-consciously balancing spells against skills, though 4e perhaps comes closest (but not terribly close) with its Ritual rules and its wizard cantrips.

(And I would note that a PHB wizard has audible glamour (sorry, ghost sound) as an at-will ability - which is one important component of the low-level illusionist's repertoire.)

And in light of some recent posts, I want to stress this is not a "bash pre-4e editions" post. I've GMed AD&D illusionists, and also Rolemaster illusionists (similar in some ways, different in others) and they're fun. But if we're talking about mechanically balancing them, it's important that we make sure we're looking at the correct part of the overall design space.

 

[Janaxstrus]

For the record, I myself never claimed -10 was the "lowest allowed." Just that my games never saw anything below -6 and that it would feel silly to take it any further. AFAIK GG's DMG is silent on the matter.

Obviously, you can give out as many +5 items as you want and create an ultra-low AC.

You're not going to see very many fighters with an 18 dex. Whether or not you'll get +5 full Plate & a +5 shield is between you and your dm.

I remember when my 2e character had a -2 and I was a king amongst peasants.
My wife's character (a cheesey svirfneblin specialty priest) had a -4 in another campaign and was nearly unkillable.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Balance is necessary but not sufficient.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Basic D&D, in my view, is prone to produce PCs with wide gaps in mechanical effectivenss, without any offsetting considerations: better PCs actually advance faster (due to the XP bonus for high stats); most PCs are trying to perform the same tasks (fighting monsters, exploring dungeon corridors and rooms); and the game emphasises succeeding at challenges over being challenged, given that the penalty for failure is typically death. (I just reread the two samples of play in Moldvay Basic, and in what is probably an hour or so of play two PCs die - one to a failed poison save during exploration, and one in combat).

Once you go to something more player-friendly than ability scores generated as 3d6, in order (i.e. something that produces higher and more consistent and flexibly placed ability scores), you can redress a substantial chunk of early D&D balance by making high ability scores give a minus to XP instead of a bonus. (Presumably this is done on the flavor grounds that characters with high ability scores don't need to work as hard, and thus don't learn as much.) The high scores are still generally worth having, but sometimes getting that next level a session earlier is pretty nice, too.

We played some of our later AD&D 1E campaigns this way, around levels 5-9, and quite enjoyed it.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Balance is necessary but not sufficient.

Balance shouldn't mean a wizard at 4th level has a spell that deals 2d6 damage and blinds, so a fighter has to have a maneuever that does 2d6 damage and blinds, and a thief has an ability that does 2d6 damage and blinds, etc

For me, balanced simply by combat won't fly. The characters just need to be balanced in the scheme of the game. I'm perfectly fine with the wizard being more effective in some situations in combat, while the rogue is much more effective in non-combat (but not useless in combat by any means) situations.

Avoiding the Wizard/Cleric/Insert Class You Dislike taking over EVERY facet of the game, but also maintaining their unique flavors is paramount. The classes should feel different, play different and shine in different areas.

I would still rather have a slightly unbalanced game that is fun to me, and feels like D&D, than a perfectly balanced game that lacks the D&D feel.

 

[Mattachine]

I contend that 5e does not need to be better than other editions being played.

It needs to be about as good, since many folks will switch to a good game that has the added bonus/cache' of being the current edition of D&D. For example, about half of my current gaming group play 4e not because they like it the most (one favors 3.5, one favors BECMI, and one favors 2e), but because it is good enough for them, and they want to play the current, official D&D game.

Sure, lots of folks here on EN World don't care about playing the current, official edition. Many here (self-included) have written and use our own game books, or even our own systems. We are unusual in that respect. The kids in the D&D club at school want to play the current, electronically supported edition, and will do so as long as it is good. There's no requirement for them that the new edition be better.

 

[DMKastmaria]

I remember when my 2e character had a -2 and I was a king amongst peasants.
My wife's character (a cheesey svirfneblin specialty priest) had a -4 in another campaign and was nearly unkillable.

For the record, a quick glance through the 1e Deities & Demigods shows 1 god with a -12 AC.

2 with a -10. 1 with a -9. 3 with a -8. 3 or 4 with a -7.

Most are between 0 and -4.

 

[P1NBACK]

For me, balanced simply by combat won't fly. The characters just need to be balanced in the scheme of the game. .

This. I want the characters to be "balanced" not by damage output or whatever, but by a different scale entirely.

For Apocalypse World, Vincent Baker uses three different measures of balance: mechanically, fictionally and "mindshare".

D&D doesn't necessarily have to use this axis, but it seems like it certainly has before. In early D&D, the Fighter was the mechanically powerful class. They were the most reliable. Good AC, good HP, good damage, most staying power, etc. The Thief was fictionally the best. They could use their skills and imagination to circumvent obstacles and avoid conflict entirely. And, the Mage was the "mindshare". When he was doing something, everyone paid attention because usually the effects were going to be significant (even at 1st level, a Sleep spell could be a game-changer).

Each class had their own purpose in the group and adventure, and different places where they shined.

The problem with balancing everything around combat is that some players don't like combat. Some players like being sneaky, or dealing with problem solving, or unleashing cool magical effects that change the world in significant ways.

I wish D&D would move back in this direction. In order for it work though, combat can't be the focus of the game. The game has to be focused on the adventure in sum.

 

[P1NBACK]

I contend that 5e does not need to be better than other editions being played.

I'd say most of those people are playing 4E right now, and WotC already has them on board for 5E.

I'm talking about all of the people playing Pathfinder, OSRIC, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Adventurer Conqueror King, Castles & Crusades, AD&D (B/X, 2E), 3.x, etc. or left D&D entirely.

WotC has a real chance to bring those people back into the D&D fold. But, they're not going to do it with "just good enough".

 

[I'm A Banana]

What some folks are saying about not balancing for combat and what I'm saying about illusion and the like indicates that a balance that exists accross multiple encounters -- an entire "adventure" -- might be much more viable than a 3e/4e-style encounter-by-encounter balance. It sounds like 5e is pursung this -- this is the adventure-based design they've been talking about.

This might mean that an illusion spell or an assassin's death attack or a save-or-suck/charm person spell might dominate a single encounter, in exchange for not dominating every encounter in the adventure. It's OK to occasionally do infinite damage to one target -- they've only got so much HP, and there's more targets where they came from.

Edit: That doesn't necessarily remove balance problems entirely -- you still might need to make those tough calls -- but it does help make most balance problems significantly less pernicious, by limiting their effect and frequency, if nothing else.