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

[Magil]

But unless the specific monster entry lists a spell specifically as working in a certain way it DOESNT WORK. Because the entry for ALL GOLEMS says so.

Very few summoned monsters can even scratch the paint of a decent golem. They mean nothing but meat shields in combat and accomplish nothing against it but buying you time.

What else do you have?

Why is the wizard ever in any danger from a golem? Fly.

Resistance to damage? Summon lantern archons. Same level as black tentacles so it should be fair game for this discussion, right? With ~8 rounds of blasting, 2 or 3 archons will eliminate a golem, maybe 4 if you're unlucky. The golem will never hit the archons either since they can fly.

Even if you try to ignore the 3.5 FAQ/SRD and change the rules to fit your own interpretation, a group of wizards can still fairly effortlessly beat a golem.

 

[GreyICE]

I think it's a great solution for knock, finding traps, tracking, climbing, etc. But you're right that invisibility is a horse of a somewhat different color since it really doesn't do what a skill check would do. In a game in which hiding and moving silently (and spot and listen) are separate, it's a lot easier to adjudicate. Require a very high spot check, leave the listen check the same. But in a game with a more abstract stealth skill, a flat and not ridiculously high modifier for invisibility would be reasonably appropriate.

I'm a huge fan of unified skill systems. Unifying listen and spot into perception cleans up the skill list quite a bit.

Also how is someone arguing that golems don't work exactly like the SRD says they work?

 

[Manbearcat]

@billd91 & @Neonchameleon

I cannot xp either of you but here's a golfclap post for your patience and clarity.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/billd91.html

 

[Libramarian]

It directly avoids a problem I've seen in play: The DM writes an adventure/campaign, the players roll up characters, the DM starts play and drops out "the big hook"....only to watch the players all either ignore it or outright reject it on the grounds that "my guy wouldn't care about that" or "why would my guy think he could do anything about that." I've particularly noted this phenomenon when a DM tries to incorporate a published module into a larger campaign.

Yeahhh, but you don't need to change D&D that drastically to solve that problem. You just need some sort of reward system that encourages the players to get the game going rather than wait for the DM to give them a hook (like using XP as a carrot rather than just a pacing mechanic). Alternatively, you just have to accept that the player's job is to take the hook. If you don't want to reward the players for setting their own goals (because this typically involves the use of metagame mechanics) then the players don't have a choice there; to not take the DM's prepared hook would be poor play on the social contract level, imo.

 

[pemerton]

It directly avoids a problem I've seen in play: The DM writes an adventure/campaign, the players roll up characters, the DM starts play and drops out "the big hook"....only to watch the players all either ignore it or outright reject it on the grounds that "my guy wouldn't care about that" or "why would my guy think he could do anything about that." I've particularly noted this phenomenon when a DM tries to incorporate a published module into a larger campaign.

I'm not a big fan of "hook" adventure design, for just this reason. When I use published adventures, I change/add in enough to make it fit the players' interests as expressed through their PCs.

 

[billd91]

I'm not a big fan of "hook" adventure design, for just this reason. When I use published adventures, I change/add in enough to make it fit the players' interests as expressed through their PCs.

Isn't that just changing the hook?

 

[Yora]

A hook is a hook. You just pick the right bait to make your players swollow it. ^^

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes words have meaning. The word your missing is ANY in the description.

Ah yes. The word "Any". Let me repeat the two text boxes.
The general:

Immunity to Magic (Ex)

Golems have immunity to most magical and supernatural effects, except when otherwise noted.
​

And the specific one for each golem:

Immunity to Magic (Ex)

A [type] golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.
​

The word "any" simply isn't in the first texbox. The one that uses the word "most". So we know by elimination you must be talking about the second. And you can't be talking about 3.0 Golems - their description doesn't have the word 'any' in it. To repeat the only sentence containing the word 'any' between the various descriptions of the Golem's magic immunity:

A [type] golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance.
​

I suppose you could stop reading after the word "ability" and assume that that means they are immune to all spells, even those that don't allow spell resistance. But that would be obviously incorrect.

This is simply wizard powergamers with bad DM's who didnt understand the rules and let them get away with murder claiming the rules were at fault.

A nice way of describing the official FAQ.

I know its hard to admit when you have made a mistake but in this particular case you were making a mistake.

And what mistake was that? Reading the rules as written, and rules as intended, as confirmed by the official FAQ?

 

[Ratskinner]

You need better - or different - bait.

...err...Right. That's the point. The games we were talking about have mechanisms for the game to focus on the PC's interests. D&D does not. Its left up to "good DMing" which is (if people moaning on the web is any judge) an apparently rare skill.

There are also D&D players who would object to this. For instance, in my current group, several of the players have stated that they prefer the story to "evolve"....that is, the characters really do start as a pile of stats and not much else. Filling in the blanks as time goes on is part of what they play for. Which makes some of the "hooking" in early adventures, tough. It often forces them to play in worlds that are fairly contrived.

 

[Ratskinner]

Yeahhh, but you don't need to change D&D that drastically to solve that problem. You just need some sort of reward system that encourages the players to get the game going rather than wait for the DM to give them a hook (like using XP as a carrot rather than just a pacing mechanic). Alternatively, you just have to accept that the player's job is to take the hook. If you don't want to reward the players for setting their own goals (because this typically involves the use of metagame mechanics) then the players don't have a choice there; to not take the DM's prepared hook would be poor play on the social contract level, imo.

Oh sure. Solving the problem is just a "side effect". There is certainly much variation in people's feelings about whether you "should" have such motivations explicit in the mechanics or not. I actually think that D&D is generally a poor system for your suggestion of encouraging "the players to get the game going rather than wait for the DM to give them a hook" its generally far too difficult to DM on the fly.

Also....how can metagame mechanics exist? or...What do you mean by "metagame"?

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.
In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.

If you have mechanics for it...it can't be metagame, can it? Or do you mean mechanics outside of "simulation" or something like that.

In role-playing games, metagaming can be defined as any out of character action made by a player's character which makes use of knowledge that the character is not meant to be aware of. (Metagaming while taking part in relatively competitive games, or those with a more serious tone, is typically not well received, because a character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story.)

It would seem to me that mechanics that drive play around characters' backstories and drives would be the opposite of "metagame".

erm...doesn't it?

 

[B.T.]

This entire golem argument is lol.

 

[The Choice]

This entire golem argument is lol.

It's also quite informative; some of the people who defend 3.X as a "totally not broken and unbalanced game" are actually not using the rules as written or intented.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's also quite informative; some of the people who defend 3.X as a "totally not broken and unbalanced game" are actually not using the rules as written or intented.

You realize that they aren't intended to be used as written, right?

And that the same argument could thus be made about any rpg (most definitely including 4e)?

 

[slobster]

You realize that they aren't intended to be used as written, right?

And that the same argument could thus be made about any rpg (most definitely including 4e)?

That's an interesting point of view. I'll admit that I don't run 3.x by RAW, but I do run and play 4E by RAW, Dresden Files by RAW, and L5R by RAW and haven't really experienced any problems. Moreover, having had the pleasure of talking to playtesters and (in one case) designers for L5R and Dresden RPG, I can tell you that they definitely intended their ruleset to be playable as written. They don't mind if you run the game with houserules, of course, but they did intend the fruit of their efforts to be playable without any houserules or overhaul.

 

[billd91]

It's also quite informative; some of the people who defend 3.X as a "totally not broken and unbalanced game" are actually not using the rules as written or intented.

Except that we have shown that those golem rules that you are implying aren't the rules as written or as intended really are the rules as written and intended... for 3.0 (which, last time I checked, was part of 3.x). The person arguing they were still the same for 3.5 was mistaken, but that doesn't change the fact that they were the RAW and RAI for part of 3.x.

 

[Hussar]

You realize that they aren't intended to be used as written, right?

And that the same argument could thus be made about any rpg (most definitely including 4e)?

That's an interesting POV.

If rules are written with the express intent that they won't be used as written, what's the point of using written rulesets in the first place? Why not go freeform and be done with it?

Defending mechanics based on the fact that you can change the mechanics is fine to be honest. We all change mechanics. What blows me away is that people apply that thinking to earlier editions but 4e must be run by RAW and only by RAW and nothing but RAW without a single moment of introspection. My http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/328517-changes-interpretation.html thread shows that nicely.

 

[Magil]

You realize that they aren't intended to be used as written, right?

And that the same argument could thus be made about any rpg (most definitely including 4e)?

I, erm... I don't follow this logic. I mean, obviously, WotC isn't stamping out houserules and probably doesn't expect you to use the whole system by RAW, or rather, care if you don't, but they do write rules for the purpose of being used.

Sure, maybe they don't expect you to use the whole system, but I'd say that every single rule they write was intended for use (even if not for everyone to use). Else, why write it?

 

[Ahnehnois]

If rules are written with the express intent that they won't be used as written, what's the point of using written rulesets in the first place? Why not go freeform and be done with it?

Because the word "rule" is really a misnomer. They're guidelines. They're a starting point. They're a paradigm you use to create a fantasy reality, not the parameters of a competition.

Defending mechanics based on the fact that you can change the mechanics is fine to be honest. We all change mechanics. What blows me away is that people apply that thinking to earlier editions but 4e must be run by RAW and only by RAW and nothing but RAW without a single moment of introspection.

I don't think anyone's saying that. My problem with 4e is not the presence of material I can't use (as 3e and 2e and various other games I like have plenty of that). It's the absence of anything I can use.

I would have to remove the standard modifier, the entire power system, the health and healing rules, the setting, the skill challenges, and virtually all of the races and classes, as well as rebuild all the monsters and replace all of that basic structure, just in order to run a basic introductory 4e session. That's not houseruling, that's me writing a new game. (Whereas to run a 3e game, I could go straight from the core books, maybe add some Unearthed Arcana stuff that's free online, and hit the road running). I don't mind building a new class for a player who wants a better warmage, but I need some kind of framework I can work within.

I look at 4e with exactly the same eye that I use to look at Trailblazer, Pathfinder, and any number of other d20 derivatives (as do most people, I suspect).

 

[Ahnehnois]

I, erm... I don't follow this logic. I mean, obviously, WotC isn't stamping out houserules and probably doesn't expect you to use the whole system by RAW, or rather, care if you don't, but they do write rules for the purpose of being used.

Sure, maybe they don't expect you to use the whole system, but I'd say that every single rule they write was intended for use (even if not for everyone to use). Else, why write it?

It's intended for use, but also intended for interpretation. In the unlikely event that a character overpowers the others consistently, the DM is given broad authority to fix that by any means necessary. If the game is not fun, everyone at the table is empowered to change things.

 

[Magil]

It's intended for use, but also intended for interpretation. In the unlikely event that a character overpowers the others consistently, the DM is given broad authority to fix that by any means necessary. If the game is not fun, everyone at the table is empowered to change things.

So they are meant to be used as written, unless they become a problem? Okay, that makes more sense than what you said at first.

I just don't agree with that kind of philosophy, at least not to such a big extent. It almost feels as if the designers would be saying, "we'll make something, throw it at the players to buy, and they can fix it if it's broken." I'd rather play a system that doesn't need as much fixing, it's a lot less work for me to start having fun!