Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8312522" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>An appeal to authority is only inappropriate if the authority is not relevant. <em>The man who led the design team</em> is a relevant authority, for exactly the same reason that (say) one would expect Lin-Manuel Miranda's opinion on the weak points of <em>Hamilton</em> to be relevant.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm sorry, <strong><em><u>what???</u></em></strong></p><p></p><p>Who on EARTH said that two things have to be identical to be balance? And who on earth ever said 4e "failed miserably at balance"? Even its most ardent detractors, the people willing to completely invent random crap about it, recognized 4e's balance. I am <em>completely baffled</em> by these assertions. I emphatically, absolutely reject the idea that "balance" <em>means</em> being identical. People tout StarCraft, for example, as an excellent demonstration of "asymmetrical balance."</p><p></p><p>Rock paper scissors is partially asymmetrical ("x wins against y" is a non-transitive relation on the set of moves, but each player engages in the same gameplay loop), yet (by definition) perfectly balanced. No two moves are identical, yet each is perfectly balanced with every other, such that the only way to gain an advantage is to exploit player psychology and long-run behavior, because the rules themselves (again, by definition) prevent any such exploitation.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ooooooor...you could just use the actual, accepted definition of "balance," which is that "balance" <em>includes the idea of acceptable ranges</em>, because we're talking about statistics, rather than about precise equalities and perfect, diamond rules. And, as I said, I've <em>run</em> those numbers on things like the Champion, and they are <em>not</em> acceptable for it, for something specifically geared for doing damage and almost nothing else. The Champion does not even get up to 80% of the Battlemaster's damage output until you've had <em>at least</em> five reasonably-sized fights a day, and it takes 7-8 to actually be in the same ballpark. This is why it--in some restricted sense--is "bad." It has a clear purpose, dealing damage, and it is demonstrably bad at achieving that purpose relative to equivalent options (other Fighter subclasses) <em>unless</em> the 6-8 (combat!) encounters per day assumption is met. Since that assumption is generally <em>not</em> true of 5e games, this means players who want a low-engagement Fighter subclass are--statistically but consistently--shortchanged in a codifiable way compared to those who are comfortable with other Fighter subclasses.</p><p></p><p>As with any statistical thing, you have to set what reasonable bounds are. Fortunately, we have ready-made examples thereof, like the traditional alpha value (0.05, a 5% chance of committing a false-negative error) and standard deviations/z-scores, so these are not absolutely-arbitrary, "we invented a number that sounded nice" things, but rather ones with over a century (in some areas, pushing two centuries) of established use.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again: no, they absolutely are balanced, and people <em>speak of them that way</em>. People <em>specifically call it</em> "balanced." They do not call it "acceptably imbalanced." "Balance" is, was, and always will be a statistical concept in the gaming sphere, be it video games or tabletop games. People <em>explicitly</em> make comparisons between FFXIV and WoW, where there have been times where the developers simply straight-up tell players, "Play some other specialization of your class for the next three months, because this one is just not going to work," and where people have defended the ongoing <em>major</em> divergence between different classes with "balance is too hard to achieve, they couldn't possibly do better."</p><p></p><p>Honestly, I am so completely baffled by this perspective. <em>No one</em> uses "balance" to mean "absolutely identical things compared." It's not even what the ordinary <em>non-game</em> meaning of the word is! You can have three forces, none of which is equal in magnitude or direction to any of the others, but which together result in a balanced configuration.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8312522, member: 6790260"] An appeal to authority is only inappropriate if the authority is not relevant. [I]The man who led the design team[/I] is a relevant authority, for exactly the same reason that (say) one would expect Lin-Manuel Miranda's opinion on the weak points of [I]Hamilton[/I] to be relevant. I'm sorry, [B][I][U]what???[/U][/I][/B] Who on EARTH said that two things have to be identical to be balance? And who on earth ever said 4e "failed miserably at balance"? Even its most ardent detractors, the people willing to completely invent random crap about it, recognized 4e's balance. I am [I]completely baffled[/I] by these assertions. I emphatically, absolutely reject the idea that "balance" [I]means[/I] being identical. People tout StarCraft, for example, as an excellent demonstration of "asymmetrical balance." Rock paper scissors is partially asymmetrical ("x wins against y" is a non-transitive relation on the set of moves, but each player engages in the same gameplay loop), yet (by definition) perfectly balanced. No two moves are identical, yet each is perfectly balanced with every other, such that the only way to gain an advantage is to exploit player psychology and long-run behavior, because the rules themselves (again, by definition) prevent any such exploitation. Ooooooor...you could just use the actual, accepted definition of "balance," which is that "balance" [I]includes the idea of acceptable ranges[/I], because we're talking about statistics, rather than about precise equalities and perfect, diamond rules. And, as I said, I've [I]run[/I] those numbers on things like the Champion, and they are [I]not[/I] acceptable for it, for something specifically geared for doing damage and almost nothing else. The Champion does not even get up to 80% of the Battlemaster's damage output until you've had [I]at least[/I] five reasonably-sized fights a day, and it takes 7-8 to actually be in the same ballpark. This is why it--in some restricted sense--is "bad." It has a clear purpose, dealing damage, and it is demonstrably bad at achieving that purpose relative to equivalent options (other Fighter subclasses) [I]unless[/I] the 6-8 (combat!) encounters per day assumption is met. Since that assumption is generally [I]not[/I] true of 5e games, this means players who want a low-engagement Fighter subclass are--statistically but consistently--shortchanged in a codifiable way compared to those who are comfortable with other Fighter subclasses. As with any statistical thing, you have to set what reasonable bounds are. Fortunately, we have ready-made examples thereof, like the traditional alpha value (0.05, a 5% chance of committing a false-negative error) and standard deviations/z-scores, so these are not absolutely-arbitrary, "we invented a number that sounded nice" things, but rather ones with over a century (in some areas, pushing two centuries) of established use. Again: no, they absolutely are balanced, and people [I]speak of them that way[/I]. People [I]specifically call it[/I] "balanced." They do not call it "acceptably imbalanced." "Balance" is, was, and always will be a statistical concept in the gaming sphere, be it video games or tabletop games. People [I]explicitly[/I] make comparisons between FFXIV and WoW, where there have been times where the developers simply straight-up tell players, "Play some other specialization of your class for the next three months, because this one is just not going to work," and where people have defended the ongoing [I]major[/I] divergence between different classes with "balance is too hard to achieve, they couldn't possibly do better." Honestly, I am so completely baffled by this perspective. [I]No one[/I] uses "balance" to mean "absolutely identical things compared." It's not even what the ordinary [I]non-game[/I] meaning of the word is! You can have three forces, none of which is equal in magnitude or direction to any of the others, but which together result in a balanced configuration. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll
Top