D&D 5E it appears to be very easy to break the game

[Kobold Stew]

But yeah, I would say Defy Death probably needs some kind of minor nerf.

Or the rules for Instant Death do (How to play, pp. 22-23). If Instant Death was set not at the character's hit point total but at (IMO) the much more erasable cap of the character's Constitution score, then the ability remains powerful, but is not godlike.

It also keeps the Instant Death rule in play across the levels, and not only at low levels.

Win, win.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Naw I was with you up until the final part. If it does not make the claim, then it does not make the claim. There is no implication of balance, that's your inference. They make lots of claims about the game, and I don't see any implied balance claims being made.

You see no implicit claims of balance in 3.X? I see two obvious ones. First there's the Effective Character Level/Level Adjustment system. If levels aren't meant to be balanced, the ECL is utterly meaningless. Secondly there's the Challenge Rating system that implies that characters of similar level should be able to contribute similar amounts. (I could also mention the multiclassing rules - but those aren't as clear cut).

 

[Mistwell]

You see no implicit claims of balance in 3.X? I see two obvious ones. First there's the Effective Character Level/Level Adjustment system. If levels aren't meant to be balanced, the ECL is utterly meaningless.

Uh, ECL *IS* utterly meaningless. It never functioned. And, I see no implication of "balance" even if it had. It's a tool the DM can use to adjust things, not a tool that implies things will be equal/balanced. For the most part, I saw it used to try and convert things from prior editions (poorly), or convert things to be a playable race that were never really meant to be such.

Secondly there's the Challenge Rating system that implies that characters of similar level should be able to contribute similar amounts. (I could also mention the multiclassing rules - but those aren't as clear cut).

CR was again a tool for trying to judge how much of a challenge something would be, not that it was balanced. It also had nothing to say about different classes contributing "similar amounts".

 

[Neonchameleon]

Uh, ECL *IS* utterly meaningless. It never functioned. And, I see no implication of "balance" even if it had. It's a tool the DM can use to adjust things, not a tool that implies things will be equal/balanced. For the most part, I saw it used to try and convert things from prior editions (poorly), or convert things to be a playable race that were never really meant to be such.

That ECL doesn't work and is not fit for purpose doesn't mean that it isn't present in the system and is something that the system claims is meaningful. Claiming that it is meaningless when the game wants us to think otherwise is proving my point.

 

[Mistwell]

That ECL doesn't work and is not fit for purpose doesn't mean that it isn't present in the system and is something that the system claims is meaningful. Claiming that it is meaningless when the game wants us to think otherwise is proving my point.

Show me where it claimed it was meaningful FOR BALANCE?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Show me where it claimed it was meaningful FOR BALANCE?

What else is effective character level meant to mean? Other than these characters are effectively about the same strength? What else is CR meant to be? Other than a balance marker?

 

[Mistwell]

What else is effective character level meant to mean? Other than these characters are effectively about the same strength? What else is CR meant to be? Other than a balance marker?

I already answered this question...you know, the parts you cut out of my answer so you could apparently just ask the questions again?

 

[pemerton]

Uh, ECL *IS* utterly meaningless. It never functioned. And, I see no implication of "balance" even if it had. It's a tool the DM can use to adjust things, not a tool that implies things will be equal/balanced.

<snip>

CR was again a tool for trying to judge how much of a challenge something would be, not that it was balanced. It also had nothing to say about different classes contributing "similar amounts".

I thought [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]'s point was fairly simple: ECL and CR are both presented as tools for the GM to use to judge the mechanical strength/difficulty of various game elements that can be deployed independently of the classes of the particular characters concerned. This generates an implication that differences of class don't matter to the deployment of those tools, that is, don't matter to the mechanical strength/difficulty of various game elements.

To flip it around: if a Nth level fighter was not comparable in mechanical effectiveness to an Nth level MU, then you couldn't deploy a tool like CR or ECL to judge mechanical strength/difficulty without knowing the class of character involved. Given that the rules nowhere suggest that CR or ECL is class-dependent in this way, they generate an implication of comparable mechanical effectiveness across classes of Nth level.

And another way of describing that implication is as an implication of mechanical balance of effectiveness across the classes.

It seems pretty straightforward to me, and insofar as 4e and D&Dnext have GM tools in the same functional space they generate the same implication.

 

[n00bdragon]

ECL was pretty clearly meant to be some sort of balancing mechanism for playing monstrous characters. That it failed miserably is without question, particularly since character levels themselves are so unbalanced depending on the class and the build, but it was an attempt.

 

[Hussar]

Faulty products? Wait, didn't you just say.......






So 'faulty product' seems to be at odds with 'different people have different tastes'.

Only if you believe that playing with poorly designed rules is a taste thing.