D&D 5E How on earth is this balanced?! Twilight cleric, more in-play evidence

[Mort]

Yes?

You can never balance D&D because players are not all equally skilled. Attempts to "balance" games sucks the life and variety out of them. Embrace the chaos of unbalance!

To actually respond.

For this to be true, the designers have to address the fact openly that options are not balanced with each other. Make sure the DM is aware that balance was not a concern etc.

Otherwise, a DM comes into it assuming options are at least roughly balanced and has to discover as he goes that they are not.

Edit: but I can't remember designers ever Actually stating that their game is unbalanced. It's usually AFTER imbalance is discovered that "well balance was never the go L and isn't desirable anyway, uh yeah...."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

To actually respond.

For this to be true, the designers have to address the fact openly that options are not balanced with each other. Make sure the DM is aware that balance was not a concern etc.

Otherwise, a DM comes into it assuming options are at least roughly balanced and has to discover as he goes that they are not.

Why? Given that there is no statement to the effect that all options are balanced, DMs have been given no reason to assume that was the case in the first instance.

 

[Mort]

Why? Given that there is no statement to the effect that all options are balanced, DMs have been given no reason to assume that was the case in the first instance.

No way!

The options are presented together as different options for the same class. They are presented, expressly, as being equivalent with absolutely no indication that some are clearly better than others. Unless it's expressly addressed, it's a flaw not a feature.

5e is actually much better about this than prior editions, but things creep in

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why? Given that there is no statement to the effect that all options are balanced, DMs have been given no reason to assume that was the case in the first instance.

Why? Things like level and CR are implicit statements of balance.

And if I'm not paying the game designers to balance the game I don't see much in there to be worth paying them for. There are many authors capable of writing better settings - and doing gonzo is easy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They are presented, expressly, as being equivalent with absolutely no no indication that some are clearly better than others.

No there aren't. It says nothing to indicate equivalence - indeed, the existence of social and skill options makes it quite clear that they are not "balanced", if by "balanced" you mean "equally good at fighting".

Unless it's expressly addressed, it's a flaw not a feature.

It's only a flaw if it claims to be one thing then it turns out not to be. Since on one at WotC has ever made the claim that D&D was balanced, a lack of balance is not a flaw.

 

[Thunder Brother]

Why? Given that there is no statement to the effect that all options are balanced, DMs have been given no reason to assume that was the case in the first instance.

But all options should be worthwhile. So even ignoring ideas about game balance, it's poor form on the part of a game designer to include options that are clearly mechanically superior to another.

Compare the Twilight and Nature domains. Why would anyone pick the latter unless they really like the fluff (which you can always change).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why? Things like level and CR are implicit statements of balance.

No, CR is an indicator of relative difficulty. And no DM takes it seriously as more than a rough estimate, there are far to many variables involved, most obviously play skill.

And if I'm not paying the game designers to balance the game I don't see much in there to be worth paying them for. There are many authors capable of writing better settings - and doing gonzo is easy.

Then don't. No one is forcing you to by WotC products!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But all options should be worthwhile. So even ignoring ideas about game balance, it's poor form on the part of a game designer to include options that are clearly mechanically superior to another.

Compare the Twilight and Nature domains. Why would anyone pick the latter unless they really like the fluff (which you can always change).

Worthwhile is not the same as "equally good in a fight".

 

[Mort]

No, CR is an indicator of relative difficulty. And no DM takes it seriously as more than a rough estimate, there are far to many variables involved, most obviously play skill.

Then don't. No one is forcing you to by WotC products!

I'm REALLY not seeing this. You pay the designers to DESIGN a tight game so you don't have too. It's a shortcut.

Next, I completely disagree with your premise. The entire presentation of the PHB and further supplements is as a bunch of equivalent options - not as a hodgepodge of abilities to pick and choose from.

Further, you're not distinguishing different types of balance. Balance between PCs and the world, mostly irrelevant, at least to me.

Balance between party members - extremely important.

 

[Mort]

Worthwhile is not the same as "equally good in a fight".

But if the subclass is ALSO better at the other tiers?

It's an issue when one player's character is simply better at everything that another player's character tries to do.

And sure you can't control for everything, but when the issue is as simple as subclass picked, that's a flaw.