D&D General Do you care how about "PC balance"?

[Shiroiken]

The thing is, outside of message boards, I have never encountered a player that actually cares about these things relative to other PCs.

I have, and these [explitive] have ruined entire campaigns before. In general these are not the people you choose to game with, but play with them when you have few options. You are correct that the boards are full of whiteboard comparisons.

So, do you, as a player, actually worry about how your character stacks up to other players' characters? If so, in what ways? What about it is important to you? By what metric do you judge? What do you do if you feel your choices aren't as good or your character isn't as competent?

The only comparable way to "stack up" a 5E PC with another is if they're performing the EXACT same niche. Since parties that have characters doing that tend to fail miserably, most groups make an effort to not do that anyway. There are many different roles that a character can fill, and many PCs focus on a primary role, but usually have a secondary role as well.

My dwarven cleric is primarily an out of combat healer (our bard takes care of in-combat healing with Healing Word), but in combat I'm the equivalent to a tank because I regularly use Spirit Guardians. This draws fire from everyone in my immediate vicinity, as well as a lot of ranged attacks. My AC is solid, and with an 18 Con and Con save proficiency, I can take the hits and keep the spell going for a long time. This frees up our Paladin, Hexblade, and Barbarian to dish out some serious damage in melee without too much backlash. I do less damage than anyone in the party except for the bard (who IME are always bottom of the DPR totem pole), but I don't feel like I'm not contributing. That's my role, and I'm darn good at it!

 

[Hussar]

That's my role, and I'm darn good at it!

Frankly, that's the balancing point we should always be shooting for.

If the player is happy, that's the end of the story. No problem.

But, if the player isn't happy, blaming the player (oh, you're just charops metagaming or whatever) doesn't really resolve the problem. Every so often, there are balance issues in the game. It happens. 5e is a bit flatter than 3e, so, it's generally not so much of an issue, but, it still does happen. And, when it does, it doesn't hurt to tweak the rules instead of blamestorming the player for not being a good enough player or DM.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't care as long as the gap isn't to big.

If we've got less skilled players my power gamers will often pick a weaker class and power game that vs trying to overshadow them drastically.

 

[ccs]

This is a balancing point for casters that many forget. A wizard, cleric, bard, sorcerer, and warlock doesn't have access to a monster's statblocks. They don't know which saves to target, which conditions are effective, what damage types are resistant or immune, which enemies can cast spells, etc. It's all spending alot of mid-high level spell slots on uncertainties.

There's alot of metagaming that becomes apparent in these forums. I've seen complaints about the Tarrasque because they can be kited using a fly spell. Here's my question: how do you know the Tarrasque doesn't have a ranged attack when you fight it? You're gambling an attack from the Tarrasque plus the fall damage for losing concentration if you are wrong. How do you know it's range? How do you know that it even is a Tarrasque?

These answers may seem obvious because "the monster's so iconic" and "it's been discussed online." But what's online is not what's in the PHB, the only book a player should be reading extensively.

Yeah, about that....
You're notion of how this "should" work isn't practical. On numerous lvs.
1st: See, I'm a DM on Thur. And a Player on Sunday.
Please explain to me how I'm supposed to do my job on Thur if, as I'm a player on another day I should restrict myself to reading only the PHB.
Further, please explain why I should forgo enjoying only one or the other aspects - DMing/playing a PC - of this hobby.
2nd: If the PHB is the only book I should be reading as a player.... I'm concerned that this will make it very hard to access PC info from Sword Coast/Xanathars/Mordikanians/Volos/Eberron/Wildemont/any of the MTG books....
3rd: In fact not reading anything but the player specific stuff in the Eberron/Wildemont/any of the MTG books would also make it VERY difficult to enjoy playing in any of those settings. Besides, if I'm parting with $50 bucks for a book? I'm reading the whole damned thing.

In reality, a player would ideally never see a single statblock other than their own and their party members. Even with summons and companions, there's nothing saying that you get to look at the sheet. Which makes informed decisions much harder with them.

Another thing is how a DM is free to play entirely close to their chest. Not only are they allowed to roll behind the screen and not announce legendary resistances, they aren't obligated to tell them how they work, either. The DM doesn't have to disclose any metagame information and the players should not even have that knowledge in the first place. You're not obligated to know a monster's AC, To-hit, save proficiencies, features, or actions. The DM describes the creature and you must use context clues to act.

Well, as I said, plenty of us are both DMs & players. Different days or alternating campaigns. And even if I was only a player? Once I've run into a monster I can deduce it's stats in play. That knowledge doesn't erase itself between encounters or between campaigns.

 

[Hussar]

And, frankly, the best players are the ones who have DMing experience and know what it's like to have the responsibility of the game on your shoulders. Players who have DMing experience are the ones who won't exploit all those loopholes because they know what a douchey thing it is. Whereas the "player only" players are generally, IME, the ones who are the problems - completely oblivious to the rest of the group and only concerned with their character. Couldn't give a rat's petoot about the campaign.

Give me a group where everyone DM's and I'm a happy, happy camper.

 

[Reynard]

And, frankly, the best players are the ones who have DMing experience and know what it's like to have the responsibility of the game on your shoulders. Players who have DMing experience are the ones who won't exploit all those loopholes because they know what a douchey thing it is. Whereas the "player only" players are generally, IME, the ones who are the problems - completely oblivious to the rest of the group and only concerned with their character. Couldn't give a rat's petoot about the campaign.

Give me a group where everyone DM's and I'm a happy, happy camper.

I think that's a "jerk" versus "not a jerk" thing. I know plenty of really great players that have no desire to get behind the screen.

I think GMs are better GMs if they play on occasion, though. It'shard to provide a good play experience if you don't remember what makes a good play experience.

 

[prabe]

And, frankly, the best players are the ones who have DMing experience and know what it's like to have the responsibility of the game on your shoulders. Players who have DMing experience are the ones who won't exploit all those loopholes because they know what a douchey thing it is. Whereas the "player only" players are generally, IME, the ones who are the problems - completely oblivious to the rest of the group and only concerned with their character. Couldn't give a rat's petoot about the campaign.

Give me a group where everyone DM's and I'm a happy, happy camper.

They don't have to be great GMs, or have done lots of it. Even just a few sessions can be a revelation to a player who's never done it before.

Of course, I think there's something to be said for GMs who play, in that I think experiencing the game as a player makes it easier to see the game from that POV.

 

[nevin]

It doesn't have to be that hard. A troll with a ring of fire resistance. Or up in the mountains. Trolls regenerate, a fight in the mountains can be a long thing, if troll thinks he thinks he's gonna die he jumps off the cliff and comes back with reinforcements later. 10th level fighter orc chief. In my experience you change one variable that the old experienced players think they have mailed and they suddenly start overthinking everything.
I've even jacked up experienced players by simply explaining what the monster looked like, the funniest an orc, by the time I finished the description they ran because they forgot orcs could be up to 7 ft tall and they thought I was attacking them with half ogres. I once chased a 6th level partying out of a castle with a 5th level mage white makeup, red lipstick and polymorph potions. He told them they were going to serve him turned into a bat and flew into the darkness. They ran and never looked back cussing me for throwing a vampire at 6thlevel characters.

Problem is old timers even GMs Get stuck an bored and default to. 5 orcs attack you. /Yawn roll initiative.

Down my way there are a lot of veteran D&Ders who have been both GMs and players. Using fire vs a troll etc isn't going to surprise them. In such an environment, if a GM wants to make the monsters mysterious, they have to create their own.

The best rpg I ever played in was centred on hidden knowledge - a home brew we called the Dream Game. It was set in our own world. We entered dreams to protect the dreamers from "Externals", entities whose true nature we never determined. Everything was mysterious in that game. We only discovered that magic worked in the physical world about half way thru the campaign, and never figured out how to use it. Paul, the GM, had done a ridiculous amount of work creating his setting. But that's what the GM needs to do to run a successful game of that type.

It doesn't

 

[ART!]

The only "balance" I care about as a DM or player really comes down to niche protection and spotlight. I don't want characters who spill into other characters' unique roles too often and I want screen time shared more or less equitably over time. Beyond that, I don't care about "balance" to the degree that some people seem to take it.

This exactly.

I worry about it as a DM, i.e. in my players interests, but not when I'm a player myself.

As a player, I try to make a character who fills a niche no one else is filling and that is also something I've either never played and am excited to try or know how to play really well and still like playing.

 

[Asisreo]

Yeah, about that....
You're notion of how this "should" work isn't practical. On numerous lvs.
1st: See, I'm a DM on Thur. And a Player on Sunday.
Please explain to me how I'm supposed to do my job on Thur if, as I'm a player on another day I should restrict myself to reading only the PHB.
Further, please explain why I should forgo enjoying only one or the other aspects - DMing/playing a PC - of this hobby.

What you are when you begin to run a game is a DM. That's going to stick with you. You are no longer a player in a static sense. You've become a DM who plays as a player now. Or was a DM that is currently playing as a player.

I believe you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you should not be both a DM and a player. I'm saying that because that isn't the expectation, a player should never read such books as a player.

2nd: If the PHB is the only book I should be reading as a player.... I'm concerned that this will make it very hard to access PC info from Sword Coast/Xanathars/Mordikanians/Volos/Eberron/Wildemont/any of the MTG books....

Those books are optional, open to the DM permitting the characters to be any of the races available to them. Or banning every single one of them. If you're like me, you'll typically allow players to play such races and classes. However, the books need special care.

3rd: In fact not reading anything but the player specific stuff in the Eberron/Wildemont/any of the MTG books would also make it VERY difficult to enjoy playing in any of those settings. Besides, if I'm parting with $50 bucks for a book? I'm reading the whole damned thing.

That's a funny statement. I wish more people were as passionate about the DMG as you are with supplementary books.

But I disagree not having knowledge of the setting makes it harder to enjoy. In fact, I believe it's the opposite. Not knowing Eberron, FR, SC, WM, MtG makes each of them much more fun as you get to be surprised and the lore can be experienced rather than spoken.

Well, as I said, plenty of us are both DMs & players. Different days or alternating campaigns. And even if I was only a player? Once I've run into a monster I can deduce it's stats in play. That knowledge doesn't erase itself between encounters or between campaigns.

Absolutely. I've ran into a similar problem before. However, that doesn't mean I should act as someone that knows the mechanics are.

Be in the shoes of a player that never has been a DM playing alongside you. Same exact character build, except you have the knowledge of the system beyond the PHB. The player isn't able to predict an enemy's movement like you can and you can shut them down using their knowledge.

There's no reason why the other player would know Orcs have agressive and understand how to properly position themselves to avoid it. You do, though, and you've artifically tipped the balance in your favor because you've DM'ed before.

But being a DM should not be something that decides whether or not your character is more effective than the other. Otherwise, people will feel underpowered because they don't have as great system mastery. In that case, it will feel like a requirement that they must look at metagame data to keep up with you. They need to be able to predict the circumstances as well as you.

It's almost like having ran an adventure before and now being the player. It's bad form to use metagame knowledge to try to be preemptive about your choices.

Running monsters is definitely no different.

I've actually been studying Mephits as a DM because I had recently placed them in a dungeon I created when my DM for an adventure had them as enemies the same week. Well, I played as if I didn't know they exploded and they had breath weapons. Went up in their face ready to take the full blast. Funny enough, the DM homebrewed those abilities away, anyways.