D&D (2024) Should the game be "balanced" and what does that mean?

[payn]

The manticore example struck me, since what was seemingly annoying about it is that it is an unbalanced encounter for level 1 characters. Unbalanced there means that it is overly deadly if engaged in straight combat. I personally don't see the problem with that; that's when you come up with other strategies (including running away).

I think im fine with it as long as there are options, including running away. In some games, like PF2, you wouldn't be able to. (Though, PF2 is pretty clear not to send manticores at level 1 characters.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think im fine with it as long as there are options, including running away. In some games, like PF2, you wouldn't be able to. (Though, PF2 is pretty clear not to send manticores at level 1 characters.)

my issue is more with shadows and intellect devourers that have instant death effects on a low CR>

 

[Reynard]

The main objection with the lack of DM support is that the game is not "balanced" in a way that allows for the DM to play it with "mechanical integrity."

I am always clamoring for more DM support in 5E, and this is absolutely not why. The rules of 5E are simple, the math is transparent and for the most part it is easy to come up with stuff that is "balanced" when it comes to a new monster ability, a magic item or some terrain effect. The reason why 5E needs better DM support is because without it the game gets stuck in the rut of being a game about people that go on adventures and punch stuff and it's frankly not great at that. DM books that life up the exploration and social pillars, that allow PCs to rule nations and lead armies, that make it fun to craft artifacts or work toward immortality, expand the game into spaces that are fun nad interesting and frankly better than another romp through a forest and dungeon to fight a mid level boss to get a clue to the next forest and dungeon where the big boss lives. THAT's why 5E needs DM support -- because DM support expands the game and the game is better when it is about more than fighting bad guys.

 

[Malmuria]

I think im fine with it as long as there are options, including running away. In some games, like PF2, you wouldn't be able to. (Though, PF2 is pretty clear not to send manticores at level 1 characters.)

Really? You can't run away in pathfinder?

 

[aco175]

For example, one response agreeing with the above twitter thread gave a very specific example of the 5e being unbalanced and not supporting DMs: random encounter tables that are not balanced for party level, so that 1st level characters have a chance of randomly meeting a manticore, which will tpk them. Because players will have their characters fight the manticore, rather than parlaying or running away. Is that what balance means? And if so, should a design ethos focused on balance and explicit and extensive rules underpin the game as a whole?

The manticore example struck me, since what was seemingly annoying about it is that it is an unbalanced encounter for level 1 characters. Unbalanced there means that it is overly deadly if engaged in straight combat. I personally don't see the problem with that; that's when you come up with other strategies (including running away).

Does anyone remember the Essential Box DoiP and the 1st level quest that has a manticore. There was a lot of flak about it being too hard for 1st level, but others said it was a good opportunity for roleplay.

 

[payn]

Really? You can't run away in pathfinder?

Most things have the speed to keep up. There are some optional chase rules you can engage when retreat is called, but if you are that outmatched its not going to go the way you think. /Mike Erhmantraut

 

[payn]

I am always clamoring for more DM support in 5E, and this is absolutely not why. The rules of 5E are simple, the math is transparent and for the most part it is easy to come up with stuff that is "balanced" when it comes to a new monster ability, a magic item or some terrain effect. The reason why 5E needs better DM support is because without it the game gets stuck in the rut of being a game about people that go on adventures and punch stuff and it's frankly not great at that. DM books that life up the exploration and social pillars, that allow PCs to rule nations and lead armies, that make it fun to craft artifacts or work toward immortality, expand the game into spaces that are fun nad interesting and frankly better than another romp through a forest and dungeon to fight a mid level boss to get a clue to the next forest and dungeon where the big boss lives. THAT's why 5E needs DM support -- because DM support expands the game and the game is better when it is about more than fighting bad guys.

The social and exploration pillars always go neglected.

 

[Reynard]

The social and exploration pillars always go neglected.

Only in D&D it seems. Even way back in the day other games managed to do SOMETHING with them.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think that linking to that tweet & trying to start a thread asking for a definition of "balance" kind of misses the point of the tweet chain where the only use of the word balance is "If you want to run the game with any mechanical integrity, you spend half the time compensating for rules that just aren't there, and the other half wrestling with the rules that ARE because they're poorly tuned, such as CR and class balance." kind of ignores the many broader points in the chain itself. 5E is certainly not a rules light narrative system, but it absolutely cuts and designs against a lot of areas while going heavy on "ask your GM" to chase a player facing toehold in a lot of areas. In that light it's entirely reasonable to reference the rules light efforts of 5e's design with so many years of wotc pushing how 5e was designed to be easier/less complex or how various simplifications were deliberate choices made to somehow enable ease of homebrew.

This video did a nice job of getting to the heart of the problem in the tweet linked though

 

[Malmuria]

I think that linking to that tweet & trying to start a thread asking for a definition of "balance" kind of misses the point of the tweet chain where the only use of the word balance is "If you want to run the game with any mechanical integrity, you spend half the time compensating for rules that just aren't there, and the other half wrestling with the rules that ARE because they're poorly tuned, such as CR and class balance." kind of ignores the many broader points in the chain itself. 5E is certainly not a rules light narrative system, but it absolutely cuts and designs against a lot of areas while going heavy on "ask your GM" to chase a player facing toehold in a lot of areas. In that light it's entirely reasonable to reference the rules light efforts of 5e's design with so many years of wotc pushing how 5e was designed to be easier/less complex or how various simplifications were deliberate choices made to somehow enable ease of homebrew.

This video did a nice job of getting to the heart of the problem in the tweet linked though

Yeah this is the video that ends with the manticore example, and the video itself talks about the difficulty of building encounters and making monsters that have a predictable CR. In terms of balance, I think I would still ask why an encounter needs to be balanced, and what does balance means. It seems to mean that you can play the monsters without fudging dice, and provide a challenging minigame that nevertheless reliably results in PC victory as long as they are decently tactical. While I agree that encounter building could be more intuitive, I think it's an open question as to whether balance in that sense is a valuable design goal.

The other point in the video is that the DMG and supplements should have reliable subsystems for specific kinds of fantasy rpg things: magic item economy, crafting, strongholds, etc. That would be helpful! The dmg is a mess. Some of those rules might be better left to specific supplements (ship rules in GoS, war rules in the upcoming Dragonlance).