D&D 5E How much should 5e aim at balance?

[TwoSix]

So your position is that its reasonable for my fighter to be able to ToI every round stabbing the same enemy over and over knocking him 15 feet away and prone with no opening. Yet to stand still and stab someone twice requires an opening that can only occur once per encounter? If you don't see an issue here I'm not really sure what more I can say to enlighten you.

Your issue is that you're looking for a reason for it to NOT work than a reason for it TO work.

D&D doesn't make sense. It's never made sense. Every part of it breaks down if you look at it too hard.

Decide what kind of game you want to play, and pick your edition. It's not hard. I just want 5e to support the kind of game I want to play. Ideally, that would be a module with support for even more narrative aspects than 4e did.

 

[Shadeydm]

Your issue is that you're looking for a reason for it to NOT work than a reason for it TO work.

D&D doesn't make sense. It's never made sense. Every part of it breaks down if you look at it too hard.

Decide what kind of game you want to play, and pick your edition. It's not hard. I just want 5e to support the kind of game I want to play. Ideally, that would be a module with support for even more narrative aspects than 4e did.

I want 5E to have modules to emulate every edition/playstyle too we have no beef here. But I would still like to hear why Rain of Blows can't be done multiple times per encounter and Tide of Iron can...

 

[TwoSix]

I want 5E to have modules to emulate every edition/playstyle too we have no beef here. But I would still like to hear why Rain of Blows can't be done multiple times per encounter and Tide of Iron can...

Balance.

 

[Underman]

Your issue is that you're looking for a reason for it to NOT work than a reason for it TO work.

I tried the same with Neonchameleon, except the opposite: find a reason (in-game) for it TO work (metagame), but he didn't go for it.

I guess you can't change what people are looking for.

More importantly however, if you want to give someone a reason for it TO work, then giving them just any explanation is NOT going to work, as you're not listening to what they're looking for and selling them what they want to hear.

It's also true that many people will never find a reason they like to make it work. That's why 5E is coming.

D&D doesn't make sense. It's never made sense. Every part of it breaks down if you look at it too hard.

That's Vulcan/robotic logic. For many humans, "suspension of disbelief" is a common agenda.

 

[Shadeydm]

Balance.

Actually I would expect rain of blows to average lower damage since your strength bonus doesn't apply and rain of blows cetainly doesn't knock you through the air 15 feet and leave you prone so please tell me more of this balance you speak of ???

 

[TwoSix]

Actually I would expect rain of blows to average lower damage since your strength bonus doesn't apply and rain of blows cetainly doesn't knock you through the air 15 feet and leave you prone so please tell me more of this balance you speak of ???

Sure, but let's talk about RoB vs ToI, not RoB vs ToI + 3 supporting feats.

And yes, if you keep digging, you'll find plenty of stuff that isn't balanced in 4e. I've read 4e charop, believe me, I know.

Balance is a continuum. 4e is more balanced that 3e. Actually, every version of D&D is more balanced than 3e.

 

[Shadeydm]

Sure, but let's talk about RoB vs ToI, not RoB vs ToI + 3 supporting feats.

And yes, if you keep digging, you'll find plenty of stuff that isn't balanced in 4e. I've read 4e charop, believe me, I know.

Balance is a continuum. 4e is more balanced that 3e. Actually, every version of D&D is more balanced than 3e.

Even without 3 feats ToI should average higher damage than RoB (not to mention the 5 feet) so I ask again where is your balance...arbitrary limits I say.

 

[TwoSix]

Even without 3 feats ToI should average higher damage than RoB (not to mention the 5 feet) so I ask again where is your balance...arbitrary limits I say.

Sigh. I don't know, dude. I don't have compendium right here to look up the powers. I know there are plenty of subpar encounter powers. You're not exactly proving anything.

If your point is you don't like martial encounter powers, congrats, I agree you don't like them and I can't make you like them. If you think I'm going to have some sort of epiphany and say "Wow, 4e IS screwed up because of that power," well, I'm not.

 

[Shadeydm]

Sigh. I don't know, dude. I don't have compendium right here to look up the powers. I know there are plenty of subpar encounter powers. You're not exactly proving anything.

If your point is you don't like martial encounter powers, congrats, I agree you don't like them and I can't make you like them. If you think I'm going to have some sort of epiphany and say "Wow, 4e IS screwed up because of that power," well, I'm not.

Not at all man, I'm playing that fighter and having fun (not as much fun as my shielding swordmage but thats another discussion). But I take issue with the notion that the encounter limitation makes sense because it's too tiring to repeat or requires an opening thats just total poop. Even CAGI after it was nerfed are you telling me that would be unbalancing if I could do it more than once an encounter? I just don't buy it. Its all arbitrary and makes no sense imho.

 

[Pickles JG]

Not referring to you specifically, but in general, for all those people who don't take D&D seriously as a simulation, why do they keep defending various half-assed fluff explanations (that they don't take seriously anyway) against those who DO treat it more earnestly? Aren't they just yanking their chains?

EDIT: I agree that D&D isn't a serious simulation. I'm referring to the effort made to back up the crunch as is with compelling or verisimilitudinous fluff.

I dunno there are a bunch of reasons it appears.

Mine is probably because I think "if you can buy into HP & levels (I mean seriously?) then why can't you buy into martial dailies & healing surges?" So I might tender some suggestions that make it work for me in the fluff.

Others are probably trying to sink to the simulationists level & just win the argument. People have got very entrenched positions.

I do not like abstract games, I like there to be a strong flavour to a game. 1e failed for me in that it was nothing like the fiction I wanted to portray (I wanted to be Gimli or Fafhrd) as well as being nothing like the real world. As we were not aware of Greyhawk we just called it D&D world.

4e has that action movie/heroic fiction "reality" to it which, given I dont read fantasy any more, now entertains me. Action movies do not have characters carry out the same stunt over & over again as it would be dull & so encounter powers work for me in that respect (Ironman 2 has a super daily in it ). Healing surges with short rests also reflect how action heroes recover from scene to scene very well.

For personal satisfaction I have to fluff things a bit but I guess my standards are pretty low. ( I used to find action movies frustratingly unrealistic & annoying but I liked the Shadowfist CCG. When Feng Shui came out it did a pretty good job of simulating that action movie reality so my enjoyment of the movies went up too as they reflected how the game was. I am sure that kind of circular rationalisation underpins a lot of our belief structures. )