NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6545708" data-attributes="member: 6680772"><a href="http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110405" target="_blank">Legends & Lore #8 - Balance of Power</a>April 5, 2011<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?304060-Legends-and-Lore-Balance&highlight=Legends+Lore" target="_blank">Original EN World thread</a>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:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This is a thread about 5e, in the 5e forum.  Let us not rehash 3e vs 4e arguments. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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. </li> </ul>Mearls begins by looking at a simple question of what balance is.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 <a href="http://www.howlingtower.com/2013/02/class-imbalance.html" target="_blank">article</a>.  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.How did things end up in 5e?Well, I think the first line of Mearls’ article sums it up well.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.</blockquote>

Verification