Fiddling around with Fifth Ed

[OB1]

If you want to argue that it's meta-gaming, then so be it. I don't agree, but it's irrelevant to the actual point, which is that failure on your part may lead to suffering for someone else, or possibly the entire group. If you consciously choose to make your character less powerful than they could be, and someone else suffers because of that, then it's your fault.

By presenting a balanced game, without superior and inferior options, it avoids putting any player into that situation. Your choices become about what type of character you want to be, and not about your obligations to support others to the best of your ability.

By balancing for sub-optimal characters 5e has created space to create the character you want without having to worry about your obligations to the party and without the immersion breaking fakeness of forced balance between character options.

And again, by your reasoning, a party should never leave the confines of the local tavern and let someone else deal with the world shattering events, lest you cause the party to suffer death ;-)

As for my Gnomish Tavern Brawling WildSor/Feylock/GlamorBard Drixel Habblepox, he’s currently level 15 and just saved the party from a TPK thanks to a well timed Enlarged Grapple against a vampire.

Of course, 9 times out of 10 it’s the GWM Goliath Bear Totem Barbarian who’s been min/maxed to the hilt dominating combat, but it’s that time Drixel saved the day that everyone remembers.

Also worth noting, the other two PCs in our group are also less than optimal, yet we routinely fight above our level in CR and above deadly encounter xp.

We don’t make suboptimal choices in combat, that would be disruptive and putting PCs at risk, but the contract at our table says build the character the way you want, and the group will work together to overcome as a team.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Has there ever been a perfectly balanced version of D&D? Do you really think it's even possible?

There's a difference between a balance of power between characters, and balance between character options. The difficulty of balancing character options is the primary reason why class-based games have not been replaced by point-build games. When you're forced to take an entire class as a package deal, none of the individual elements need to be balanced across classes.

It's not hard to make a game where character options are balanced. The Basic Rules for 5E essentially do this, as long as you roll stats in order instead of using the array and assigning to taste. If you assign stats, though, then you are presented with a number of better and worse decisions about their placement.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And again, by your reasoning, a party should never leave the confines of the local tavern and let someone else deal with the world shattering events, lest you cause the party to suffer death ;-)

By not leaving the tavern, you fail to prevent the world from shattering, and thus cause the party to suffer death. You might console yourself by saying that it was the Big Bad who did the actual shattering, but you are still ultimately responsible for failing to stop them.

 

[MechaPilot]

Has there ever been a perfectly balanced version of D&D? Do you really think it's even possible?

No, there's never been a perfectly balanced version of D&D. When debating which edition came the closest, it really depends on how you're defining balance. Depending on the definition one is using, I'd say AD&D 2e and 4e are the most balanced: 2e using the definition of balance where being weaker (or stronger) than other classes in early levels is countered by being stronger (or weaker) than other classes in later levels, and 4e using the definition where each option for the different classes at the same resource level (at-will, encounter, or daily) is roughly equivalent.

I don't think perfect balance is ever possible (in no small part because people develop games, and people are imperfect. I just don't believe anything made by those who are imperfect can ever be perfect).

Also, I don't think perfect balance is necessary. It just has to be close enough. How close is close enough? It depends on individual preference and can't be stated as a universal or objective goal.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think perfect balance is ever possible. Also, I don't think perfect balance is necessary. It just has to be close enough. How close is close enough? It depends on individual preference and can't be stated as a universal or objective goal.

Perfection is, of course impossible. You can take that as meaning there's no point in trying so just let everything be awful, or that there's always room for improvement so never stop trying to make things better.

Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good enough, but neither should good enough be the enemy of better.

By balancing for sub-optimal characters 5e has created space to create the character you want without having to worry about your obligations to the party and without the immersion breaking fakeness of forced balance between character options.

In other words, you don't give a flying fiendish dire fig* for balance.

Which is fine. But there's nothing forced or immersion-breaking or concept-limiting about alterntive choices among character options being mechanically blanced: if you do find yourself dealing with the horror of a remotely balanced RPG, but still want an inferior character, just don't use all your build resources: take a lesser array or use fewer build points, stay at 3rd level while everyone else levels to 8, play a standard-issue kobold out of the MM, roll d12s to hit, whatever it takes...
As long as everyone's OK with it, and the DM adjusts accordingly, you're playing what you want and everyone knows what they're getting into.

But, sometimes, IM(jaded)X, the 'weird build for RP reasons in spite of it being, like totally sub-optimal' character is really a wolf in sheep's clothing...










*(Now D&D needs a Fiendish Dire Fig... should be about CR 3, I'd guess... ... they're summoned inadvertently when conjuration textbooks abreviate 'figure' when captioning an illustration of a conjuring circle and leave out the dot... ...save the rest for the Ecology of ______ article.)

 

[OB1]

By not leaving the tavern, you fail to prevent the world from shattering, and thus cause the party to suffer death. You might console yourself by saying that it was the Big Bad who did the actual shattering, but you are still ultimately responsible for failing to stop them.

Nah, I’ll leave it to the optimized specialized perfect party to stop evil from destroying the world. I’m a Tavern Brawling Gnome, so it’s better that I stay in the tavern rather than try and help and potentially get them killed [emoji41]

 

[Oofta]

There's a difference between a balance of power between characters, and balance between character options. The difficulty of balancing character options is the primary reason why class-based games have not been replaced by point-build games. When you're forced to take an entire class as a package deal, none of the individual elements need to be balanced across classes.

It's not hard to make a game where character options are balanced. The Basic Rules for 5E essentially do this, as long as you roll stats in order instead of using the array and assigning to taste. If you assign stats, though, then you are presented with a number of better and worse decisions about their placement.

By replacing those choices with random roll of the dice? That just means you're going to have winners and losers based on a one time roll of the dice. No thanks.

Regardless I think 5E is better balanced than 3.5 and previous versions. Some options are better than others but most people can make a decent character without total system mastery.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Nah, I’ll leave it to the optimized specialized perfect party to stop evil from destroying the world. I’m a Tavern Brawling Gnome, so it’s better that I stay in the tavern rather than try and help and potentially get them killed [emoji41]

Great, your gnome can stay in the tavern, and not worry about saving the world. Meanwhile, the PCs are off somewhere else, doing hero stuff; and that's who the DM is paying attention to.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

By replacing those choices with random roll of the dice? That just means you're going to have winners and losers based on a one time roll of the dice. No thanks.

Right, you have an imbalance of power between characters, but at least none of the players can be blamed for intentionally shooting the party in its collective foot.

You could also have an array where the stats are placed automatically; or do something like Gamma World 7E, where you automatically get an 18 in your prime stat, and roll randomly for everything else.

 

[Salthorae]

All this talk about shooting the party in the foot for not choosing the most optimal build choices sounds more like you want d&d to play like a video game and adventures to be raids more than how I know D&D to be.

I like my game worlds and characters to have a little bit more reality than that. No one is optimal and PC’s shouldn’t be either IMO. Characters and stories are interesting not because of their powers, but because of the limitations that they possess, and their ability to overcome those or not.

Kryptonite make superman interesting, not his invulnerability to almost everything else. Raistlin is compelling because he sacrificed his health to gain his magical powers and how that limited him in the story was interesting, but he wasn’t optimized and his health compromised his party often.