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

[Ancalagon]

If you could make a character 3x as good at combat by sacrificing social and exploration then that would theoretically work fine, it's just the fighter at best is slightly better than some other classes at combat (and he's arguably worse than most of the naturally charismatic classes).

I would say that I feel that the 5e fighter has better "out of combat support" than many prior editions because of the backgrounds. A fighter can be a sort of backup ranger or rogue for example. Some of the subclasses also help.

But it's still a sparce kit compared to some other classes. And that's why the ranger (well, phb ranger at least) or the monk have gotten flack for being weak in combat - if they were as good as a fighter, why would you ever play a fighter?!?

 

[Undrave]

I'm in agreement. At least with combat, every character class can easily make meaningful contributions to defeating the bad guys. And while each class can certainly roleplay and support social encounters in some way, the rules don't really offer a whole lot of support for that. I've had many games where those playing Monks, Fighters, Rangers, and sometimes even the Rogue (depending on build) essential sit out of social encounters specifically because their characters aren't "good" at them when the other classes outshine them. I'd like to say that's just stinkin' thinkin', but their not entirely wrong.

The worst part is when they use Intimidate as an exemple of a skill you can misuse and cause a situation to get worse and it's often the only one a Fighter or Barbarian gets naturally....

It's too easy to make things worse if you're not good at social stuff, to the point where you prefer to sit back and stay quiet.

A lot of people who, coincidentally, might enjoy D&D are also prone to the same attitude in real life... so that doesn't help.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What is balance, in the TTRPG sense? It is:

1. Defining the purpose and intended experience of play in clear and useful language,
2. Forming specific, testable design goals based on the previous definition,
3. Writing provisional rules which seek to implement those design goals,
4. Setting ranges of acceptable performance for meeting those design goals,
5. Performing rigorous, thorough testing, preferably statistical in nature,
6. Modifying the rules from step 3 where they fail to fall within the ranges from step 4,
7. Repeating steps 3-6 until no further areas remain which are outside the parameters, OR until you come to believe the design goal you set is not feasible, at which point, return to step 2 and revise that goal, then proceed as before.

Any game which performs these functions will, by definition, be balanced. This does not guarantee that it will be a good game, nor a game that is enjoyable. Those qualities are bound up in the decisions the designer must make, that is, they are about making wise design choices and correctly identifying what players value about the gameplay experience.

Balance cannot make a poor game idea good. But imbalance can make a great game idea fail. That is the crux of design: you must have an idea worth pursuing and a solid execution of that idea. Stumble in either part and you lose.

 

[Reynard]

If you could make a character 3x as good at combat by sacrificing social and exploration then that would theoretically work fine

I disagree. if the game is designed around those 3 pillars, then each character needs to be able to equally contribute to each of those pillars. In such a game, social and exploration would be just as important as combat and so making yourself useless in the others to be awesome in one would, at best, be bad form. I remember many arguments during the 3E era about whether it was okay to create suboptimal characters fir "roleplay" purposes.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would say that I feel that the 5e fighter has better "out of combat support" than many prior editions because of the backgrounds. A fighter can be a sort of backup ranger or rogue for example. Some of the subclasses also help.

But it's still a sparce kit compared to some other classes. And that's why the ranger (well, phb ranger at least) or the monk have gotten flack for being weak in combat - if they were as good as a fighter, why would you ever play a fighter?!?

The thing is, outside specific builds using the -5/+10 feats, the ranger and monk tend to be just as good in combat as the fighter for most of the game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I disagree. if the game is designed around those 3 pillars, then each character needs to be able to equally contribute to each of those pillars. In such a game, social and exploration would be just as important as combat and so making yourself useless in the others to be awesome in one would, at best, be bad form. I remember many arguments during the 3E era about whether it was okay to create suboptimal characters fir "roleplay" purposes.

The thing is the three pillars aren't equal in terms of how much contribution is needed at once or the consequences for a weak link. Everyone fights and fights are to the death. Meanwhile if one person scouts that's normal - and one person leads the talking. And both rarely directly lead to death.

 

[FrogReaver]

I disagree. if the game is designed around those 3 pillars, then each character needs to be able to equally contribute to each of those pillars. In such a game, social and exploration would be just as important as combat and so making yourself useless in the others to be awesome in one would, at best, be bad form. I remember many arguments during the 3E era about whether it was okay to create suboptimal characters fir "roleplay" purposes.

I don't think so. Once upon a time I played in a party that the DM had houserules benefiting a particular character that made the PC very strong in combat. I mean like SS+SBE+Precision attack battlemaster strong with no investment whatsoever. I had thought of making a more combat focused character, but instead I made a non-combat focused sorcerer and it was really fun. In combat I spent most of my time failing at my attempts to grapple the enemies. So why exactly do you think it's necessary for all characters to contribute equally in all pillars?

 

[Reynard]

The thing is the three pillars aren't equal in terms of how much contribution is needed at once or the consequences for a weak link. Everyone fights and fights are to the death. Meanwhile if one person scouts that's normal - and one person leads the talking. And both rarely directly lead to death.

That's because D&D isn't actually designed around the 3 pillars. The vast majority of the design is directed at combat, with next to none pointed at the social pillar.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The thing is, outside specific builds using the -5/+10 feats, the ranger and monk tend to be just as good in combat as the fighter for most of the game.

I can't agree here. The ranger and the monk are good in combat at what they do. A ranger archer is about as good as a fighter archer. But rangers don't tank well and there's basically no good strength-based ranger while paladins out of combat are niche other than a decent charisma.

Also you talk about builds using the -5/+10 feats. The fighter should reach [Stat 20] with a combat feat by level 8; the ranger only gets there four levels later. Meanwhile the fighter archer gets their third attack at level 11. It's not really "specific builds" where an archer takes sharpshooter.

On the flipside I'd point out that the more recent fighter subclasses (Rune Knight, Echo Knight, Psi Warrior, Tasha's Battlemaster) don't actually lose to non-shadow monks out of combat.

 

[payn]

I don't think so. Once upon a time I played in a party that the DM had houserules benefiting a particular character that made the PC very strong in combat. I mean like SS+SBE+Precision attack battlemaster strong with no investment whatsoever. I had thought of making a more combat focused character, but instead I made a non-combat focused sorcerer and it was really fun. In combat I spent most of my time failing at my attempts to grapple the enemies. So why exactly do you think it's necessary for all characters to contribute equally in all pillars?

I know you didn't ask me, but I'm going to chime in on this. You attest to the problem itself with your caster example. You got to choose what the character was good and bad at. As a caster the character can focus on combat, exploration, or social. Often times, all three at later points in the game. The fighter doesn't get any choice in the matter. It's only combat for them. So, that sets up the class discrepancy issue the game has long been known for. Giving all classes some choice in how they contribute opens up variety and makes the game more interesting.

It is also not necessary for every character to contribute equally, but they should be able to contribute something in each pillar. I don't like sitting around while somebody else explores or socializes. Again, in your example, even the caster can occasionally grapple something and contribute. They may suck, but they are not doing nothing either. More importantly, the caster can change spells or gain new ones and stop sucking in combat organically through play if they like. Not so much for other classes.