D&D 5E Legends & Lore - A Retrospective

[I'm A Banana]

As a [-]gnome[/-] warlord fan, I am not terribly interested in temp hp.

Temp hp are a buff. Functionally, they play the same role as an AC boost. (Though with a different technical, statistical profile.)

Healing is a different thing. It is about rousing and recovery, both mechanical and in the fiction.

Yeah, if you require the game to treat HP as morale and require the warlord to be able to heal HP by restoring morale, as defaults, the 5e treatment isn't going to be *quite* what you need. Not that it can't be - striking the word "temporary" from the Rally maneuver is not change that affects balance, but it brings that restorative warlord raging back. But that's not a change that every warlord fan (or one who DMs a battle master) is inclined to make. 5e encourages modding, but some tables are gun-shy about it.

The idea that only magic can rouse spirits is, for me, up there with the idea that only magic can maim or blind someone, or only with magic can you change someone's mind, or befriend them, or feint them.

I don't think that this is quite what 5e is suggesting. Especially with things like the Healer feat - it's entirely possible to heal characters without using magic in 5e.

But it's not possible to restore HP without healing wounds, as a default, and I think this is pretty intentional, given how 5e defines HP as a default. If HP is a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck, only an effect that can undo injury could restore HP. Temporary HP reflects when only part of that is granted - a boost that only affects morale, such as the Rally maneuver, can grant you wellsprings of endurance that you didn't know you possessed, but it won't actually heal your wounds. A boost that only affects endurance - such as the false life spell - doesn't make you suddenly able to press on, but it does make you able to take more hits.

So for me, the absence of [-]gnomes[/-] warlords and inspirational healing from 5e really is a marker of a bigger design approach that tends to push me away from the game.

Everyone's got their own dealbreakers, and if some other game (such as 4e) does that better, there's no real reason to switch. I would caution against putting much weight on 5e's design decisions, though. 5e seems to know its design principles are not foundational, immutable, and sacrosanct. It expects tables to twist and manipulate the game to their own ends. Most of 5e's design choices are easily changable. It's not hard to strike out "temporary" from the Rally move, if your table wants that. The PHB had to please a broader audience, but no one cares what you do at your own table except the people there, and you don't get a stamp of approval for clinging tightly to RAW. One might say that one of the design principles of 5e is that 5e's design principles are largely made to be violated, twisted, abused, and abandoned if you've got a better idea.

 

[Iosue]

Legends & Lore #8 - Balance of Power
April 5, 2011
Original EN World thread

This L&L looks at the question of balance, one of the powder kegs of D&D discussion. I'm actually quite wary of doing this article because this one, and the one following it about Fighters vs Wizards, bring with them the possibility of derailing the whole thread. So, as we go forward, just a few reminders and requests:

• This is a thread about 5e, in the 5e forum. Let us not rehash 3e vs 4e arguments.
• There are already a number of active threads that are devoted to the question of balance. This thread in particular is about looking back at Mearls' Legends & Lore articles with the hindsight provided by the release of 5e. Naturally, some debate about balance and how it's executed in 5e are to be expected, but I would kindly request that if the conversation starts going far afield, that a new thread be started, or the discussion be taken to thread primarily concerned with that question.

Mearls begins by looking at a simple question of what balance is.

Balance is a funny concept, because it means something different to almost everyone. It has been a part of the game since almost the beginning. Of course, for as long as gamers have known about balance we’ve also argued about it.

At its most basic level, balance means that every player begins on an even playing field. As a concept, this is most obvious in a competitive game. When you pit yourself against an opponent, you don’t want a game that levies an unfair penalty against you or gives an unfair benefit to them. Why compete on an uneven playing field? That’s a poor test of skill.

But of course D&D is a cooperative game, not a competitive game. So what does balance mean in that context? Mearls draws on the concept of "spotlight balance". If everyone generally feels that they had more or less equal chance to shine in the spotlight, they are usually satisfied with the balance of the game. But this is mitigated by a couple things. One being that desire for the spotlight might differ among players. Some want it all the time, while others, for example new players getting comfortable with the game, may prefer to hang back. For others, being in a support role may be where they feel they shine.

One aspect of balance that I think Mearls misses here is what I think of as “fictional balance”. That is, the feeling that characters are on equal footing in the fiction of the game. So, for example, while some groups may feel that casters are just naturally more powerful than martial types, and they are happy with the spotlight shining in certain ways, other groups may desire that when the casters are wielding incredible power, so are the martials. So even if the spotlight is shared relatively equally, if the martials aren’t able to shine in a similar yet distinctive way compared to casters, they are still unsatisfied. Or to go the other way, if one is in a gritty, low-magic game, and the martials are kicking butt and taking names, those playing casters may be unsatisfied if their magical powers don’t let them reach the same level of awesomeness.

In the end, what does this mean for design? In a sense, Mearls adopts the same attitude that Steve Winters says was used for 2nd Edition in this article. Because the desire and criteria for balance will vary from table to table, he thinks the DM needs to play a greater role in creating the preferred kind of play.

If you’ve been following this series, I’m about to come to a conclusion that shouldn’t surprise you. I think that balance is something that depends on the group. As designers, we can take a best guess at what the typical group wants, but we can’t stray too far in any one direction. Balance and fairness are perhaps the most difficult elements of design in D&D, because they speak to our emotions. If someone feels wronged by the game, it’s hard to rely on math or design essays to convince them otherwise.

At the end of the day, R&D should try to make each class feel like a viable option. There will always be some imbalance within a group, simply based on personal preferences and play styles. A wizard should feel powerful, but a fighter should have the same capacity for epic achievements and greatness.

However, the greatest tool for balancing a game has been and remains an individual DM. Tailoring adventures and campaigns to meet your players’ needs is still the best way to give everyone a fair shake. R&D can provide the foundation for a balanced game, but a game that tries to mathematically balance everything against a supposed ideal may prove too limiting in scope and options for players to enjoy—especially a group of players as diverse as D&D gamers.

How did things end up in 5e?
Well, I think the first line of Mearls’ article sums it up well.

Balance is a funny concept, because it means something different to almost everyone.

True to his suggestion here, the design team tried to make each class fun for the people who want to play that class, but the game relies on the DM to give each particular character a chance to shine. How well they succeeded is very much up to each person and each table. Personally, I think they were pretty successful. But there are still threads about low level wizards sucking, thieves being boring, and moon druids being broken.

One strategy they took for making it easy on DMs to share the spotlight is the Three Pillars concept of Combat, Exploration, and Interaction, and trying to provide rules and mechanics for each pillar. IMO, combat still got the lion’s share of love, and the Exploration rules are a little more diffuse than I was expecting from the playtest. OTOH, bonds/traits and the slew of random tables for locations and NPCs make it easier for DMs at least create the opportunities for non-combat shining.

While Mearls downplayed the use of math to balance characters, 5e does use Bounded Accuracy to good effect to at least keep differences between characters minimal and manageable. Also, the damage side of the equation was influenced by 4e’s tight mathematical framework, instead of the more ad hoc systems of 1e-3e.

 

[pemerton]

While Mearls downplayed the use of math to balance characters, 5e does use Bounded Accuracy to good effect to at least keep differences between characters minimal and manageable.

I think it's not just bounded accuracy. It's also changing success rates.

In low-level AD&D, it is easy to have success rates well below 50% (eg thief abilities, or an attack vs an enemy wearing scale or chain mail).

In 4e, success rates hover around 50% to 60%, although in non-combat endeavours there is more variation (especially at higher levels, as gaps between bonuses increase across PCs).

In 5e, success rates can reach well above 60% (eg 16 STR 1st level fighter vs AC 12, which is not that uncommon) and even an untrained, 8 STR character has a 40% chance to hit that AC.

This general lifting of success rates seems to me a significant feature of 5e's design, and a very big departure from AD&D in particular.

the game relies on the DM to give each particular character a chance to shine.

I think this is a point on which many would see 5e as flexible or "broad church", but a minority will see it as an approach that excludes certain styles.

I think you're right that is is reminiscent of AD&D 2nd ed.

 

[BryonD]

So for me, the absence of [-]gnomes[/-] warlords and inspirational healing from 5e really is a marker of a bigger design approach that tends to push me away from the game.

Seems a highly reasonable position.

 

[hbarsquared]

[MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] Still looking forward to hearing more of your takes! I'm reading through the old Dungeon and Dragon magazines from 4th edition now, myself, and it strikes me how often Mearls & Co say things like, "we don't like how this turned out" and the amount of time convincing us (and themselves, seems like) "no really, we made a good game!" Funny.

 

[Iosue]

Legends & Lore #9 - Fighters vs. Wizards
April 12, 2011
No Original EN World thread found

Another contentious subject, so I ask for the same considerations as in the last entry.

In this entry, Mearls looked at the relationship of power between Fighters and Wizards. He quotes from the OD&D description of magic-users:

Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magic types until they have worked up.

For Mearls, this encapsulates the relationship in OD&D (and by extension, AD&D and Classic D&D). Magic-users were glass cannons. It was in the fighters' interest to protect the party's magic-user(s) so that they could release their powerful magic at the most opportune time. He draws comparisons with CCGs, where one might create an aggressive, attacking deck for a quick victory, or alternatively a slower-play deck that holds off the opponent until an unbeatable combination can be played.

I can see where Mearls is coming from here, although I think he makes it sound like fighters were expected to be magic-user caddies -- bodyguards so that magic-users could deliver the encounter-winning spell. IMO, the relationship was much more nuanced. The game originally revolved around exploration. Magic-users had some offensive spellpower, but they also had a lot of utility spells. Particularly when you recall that OD&D as originally designed did not have the Thief, the magic-user took up a lot of that slack. Consider the 1st and 2nd level spells in Men & Magic: Detect Magic, Hold Portal, Read Magic, Read Languages, Protection from Evil, Light, Charm Person, Sleep, Detect Invisible, Levitate, Phantasmal Forces, Locate Object, Invisibility, Wizard Lock, Detect Evil, ESP, Continual Light, and Knock. This is basically all the magic-user has to work with for four levels (20,000 XP worth of play!). Sure, Sleep is powerful, and Phantasmal Forces can cause some damage if the illusions are believed to be real, but the vast majority of options for magic-users deal with finding things, finding out about things, and getting past obstacles.

Now as the game became more popular, more emphasis was placed on combat, and wizards were given more and more combat options, and Mearls' take became more and more true. But originally, and for quite a while, there was another aspect which Mearls does touch upon.

The question for Mearls is, why put that kind of design in a cooperative game like an RPG? The answer he comes to is the idea of "play skill". With limited character options and capricious dice, D&D was less about character building, or expressing a character idea, but about testing the player's ability to solve puzzles and problems, finding treasure and avoiding danger.

Against this backdrop, the disparity between wizards and fighters make sense. The fighter was akin to playing in easy mode. You had more hit points, better AC, and access to weapons. All things being equal, when it came time to use the rules to determine if you lived or died, the fighter had a leg up at low levels.

A magic-user had the worst hit points and worst AC. A single attack could kill a mage of even up to 3rd level or even higher (the most infamous example being magic-users slain by house cats). A duel between two casters of even moderate level came down to whoever fired off the first high-level, damaging spell. In some ways, playing a magic-user was like opting for hard mode.

I think Mearls is really on the right track here, but I don't think it was a matter of "easy mode vs hard mode". Because, again, the game revolved around exploration rather than combat encounters. Rather, I think it was a question of kinds of play. If you liked the combat game, fighters were what you wanted. They could mix it up with a good chance to survive. Particularly with a player-base of wargamers, you could take your PC fighter and a bunch of retainers and apply real world military tactics. The kind of play offered by the magic-user, OTOH, revolved around creative use of your limited magic abilities to achieve your goals. Clerics, with less combat ability than the fighter and less magic than the magic-user, represented a more all-around style of play. To put it another way, playing fighters was like playing Bowser in Mario Kart, playing magic-users was like playing Toad, and playing clerics was like playing Mario.

The article is largely retrospective, with no real design talk in terms of might happen in the future. Mearls leaves that to the next column.

How did things end up in 5e?

While Mearls didn't talk about how the above might influence future design, as the 5e playtest was announced and implemented, it was obvious that Mearls' take as outlined in this article influenced design. Mearls and other designers often talked about having a simple, "easy" character class for beginning players to get the feel of the game with. And this class was, unsurprisingly, the fighter. The Champion subclass included in the Basic Rules easily has the fewest moving parts of any class or subclass in the game. It's entirely static, with none of its features creating any in-play decision points for the player: improved critical range, a standing bonus to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution checks, and automatic regeneration. The loan choice a Champion player makes is selecting the Additional Fighting Style, and even here every thing except Protection involves static bonuses. And of course, the fighter has the highest HP and typically the highest AC.

That said, while the Wizard, even the Basic Evoker subclass, is functionally much more complex than the fighter, 5e eschews the drastic difference in power that characterized early D&D. Low-level Wizards may be more fragile than Fighters, but they can dish out their fair share of damage, without ever being reduced to a non-magical back-up like daggers or crossbows. At higher levels...my impression is not so much that the jury is still out as that the jury is hung. Some folks feel that high-level Wizards are too nerfed, while others feel they are still much more powerful and versatile than Fighters and other non-caster characters. The disparity is greater than in 4e but not as great as in 3e, and seems to depend much on the style of game the DM is running.

In my personal experience, I've been playing Fighters, both Champion and Battlemaster, and enjoying them both. In the old days, I liked to play magic-users (not so much because of wanting to play on "hard mode" as liking the idea of casting spells), but I find myself not especially drawn to 5e Wizards. Ironically, I'm put off by all the choices involved. In the old days, magic-users were fairly straightforward, especially in B/X. You only had a few spells to choose from, and in play it was a question of whether it was time to use them or not. With 5e, I have to select the spells I know, select the spells I've prepared, and then choose when to use them. But I'm actually thinking of making my next character a Wizard, just to get a feel for it in actual play.