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
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: 8312756" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Given the number of complains I <em>have</em> seen--even from people who have never touched a game forum in their lives--you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than "the large number of people."</p><p></p><p>Even if (say) 60% of Champion fans don't <em>mind</em> things being the way they are, is it really <em>good</em> for 2 in 5 Champion players to be dissatisfied, even if only a little? This is a thing that COULD have been easily fixed. That's part of what makes it so frustrating.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Only in a white room! So many people get so <em>frustrated</em> about that when it (allegedly) happened in 4e, so it should be a <em>huge</em> problem here, right?</p><p></p><p>...right?</p><p></p><p>Because 6-8 encounters per day <em>of any kind</em> is pretty rare in 5e games, and Crawford himself in a Youtube video explicitly said that this (coupled with taking fewer short rests than intended) is a design shortfall that they're trying to address (which is where a lot, though far from all, of those "Feature Variants" came from that got published in Tasha's). 6-8 encounters that are <em>specifically</em> combat is even rarer. Particularly when almost everyone will INSIST that the 6-8 encounters do NOT all have to be combat. (Combats also tend to almost never last more than 3-4 rounds. If there were more rounds of combat it wouldn't be <em>so</em> bad, as # of combat rounds could be more variable and thus soak up more of the difference between the two subclasses. Unfortunately, at least for this part of it, 5e was specifically designed to make combats significantly faster than they were in 3e/4e, which makes it a lot harder to balance "passive-only" options.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>But I wasn't considering active options at their best. I was considering active options <em>on average</em>, vs passive options <em>on average</em>. If a Battlemaster is actually using their options ultra-optimally (which usually means going for accuracy rather than damage, but that's a separate conversation), they will <em>completely</em> blow the Champion out of the water. I had assumed that the designers would have <em>intended</em> such a thing, and thus didn't consider it. I looked exclusively at long-run (e.g., full-adventuring-day, which is actually a LOT</p><p></p><p></p><p>[Citation needed.] Seriously. If you're going to say that "most people have fun playing it and it is massively popular," you have to demonstrate it. Otherwise, you're just making baseless assertions. Show me the surveys where the Champion is "massively popular." Show me the response reports that indicate most people who play it are having fun.</p><p></p><p>Since I know you can't do either of those things, we're back to the theoretical side of things, which we at least <strong><em>can</em></strong> discuss. And I'm totally willing to do so! But throwing out these appeals to popularity when <em>you don't actually <strong>know</strong> what is popular</em> isn't useful to the discussion.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I absolutely argue that it would significantly increase player satisfaction. I also would argue that this "improve balance by 5%" (whatever that even <em>means</em>) is almost certainly under-selling the situation. Just as, for example, I think the complete lack of a spellcasting class of comparable simplicity to the Champion is a serious waste. Y'know what fandom would love a spellcasting class that just points and shoots a few core spells over and over again? <em>Harry Potter fans</em>. They're legion, WAY bigger than D&D. Even if you only get 1% of all Harry Potter fans that don't currently play D&D to start playing D&D, you'd be making a HUGE positive impact on play.</p><p></p><p>And that's why this sort of thing is so complicated, like the video that was linked earlier. (Thanks for that video by the way [USER=6687260]@Don Durito[/USER] ! It was very informative.) Something can be unbalanced despite (for example) having a <em>low</em> win rate and <em>reasonable</em> pick rate, if it's something where low-skill players almost always lose and high-skill players almost always win. These are, of course, metrics of analysis for League of Legends (using the Akali example from that video), but there are other metrics that can, quite easily, be deceptive. What if Champion is popular <em>despite</em> not being particularly good, because <em>it's the only game in town</em>? It could quite easily be that there's a huge chunk of the D&D audience that <em>desperately wants</em> a better Champion, but because <em>there is no such thing,</em> they settle for what they're offered.</p><p></p><p>I mean, by this logic, Comcast must be an <em>excellent</em> internet service provider, because they have millions of customers, and people almost never drop their internet service! ...except that that completely ignores the fact that <em>most ISPs are local monopolies</em>. Never underestimate the possibility of a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice" target="_blank">Hobson's Choice</a>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The PF example would be more of a meaningful argument if PF weren't "the previous product with the serial numbers filed off." As much as I appreciate some of the actually-new things PF1e did, 90% or more of the actual <em>game</em> (not the adventures or setting) is "take 3.5e exactly as written and tweak two things." Which is why Pathfinder 2e came into existence, because <em>even the PF devs</em> openly admitted, "This system is <em>too broken</em> for us to keep trying to fix it."</p><p></p><p>Which, uh, yeah. Pretty much an open-and-shut example of "balanced =/= popular," among other things. Popularity <em>can be</em> a useful metric for testing balance. It's far from universally useful, let alone the <em>only</em> metric. In fact, in many games, unbalanced options ARE popular, BECAUSE they're unbalanced--the term in game design theory is "dominant strategy." People <em>will</em> use exploitative strategies if they exist; not everyone, but most people. Because...why wouldn't you try to succeed more, if you were permitted to? Even if there isn't a hard win condition, there are <em>success</em> conditions (succeeding on rolls in D&D, for example), and unbalanced options may make people hyperfocus on them because they generically do better with those success conditions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8312756, member: 6790260"] Given the number of complains I [I]have[/I] seen--even from people who have never touched a game forum in their lives--you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than "the large number of people." Even if (say) 60% of Champion fans don't [I]mind[/I] things being the way they are, is it really [I]good[/I] for 2 in 5 Champion players to be dissatisfied, even if only a little? This is a thing that COULD have been easily fixed. That's part of what makes it so frustrating. Only in a white room! So many people get so [I]frustrated[/I] about that when it (allegedly) happened in 4e, so it should be a [I]huge[/I] problem here, right? ...right? Because 6-8 encounters per day [I]of any kind[/I] is pretty rare in 5e games, and Crawford himself in a Youtube video explicitly said that this (coupled with taking fewer short rests than intended) is a design shortfall that they're trying to address (which is where a lot, though far from all, of those "Feature Variants" came from that got published in Tasha's). 6-8 encounters that are [I]specifically[/I] combat is even rarer. Particularly when almost everyone will INSIST that the 6-8 encounters do NOT all have to be combat. (Combats also tend to almost never last more than 3-4 rounds. If there were more rounds of combat it wouldn't be [I]so[/I] bad, as # of combat rounds could be more variable and thus soak up more of the difference between the two subclasses. Unfortunately, at least for this part of it, 5e was specifically designed to make combats significantly faster than they were in 3e/4e, which makes it a lot harder to balance "passive-only" options.) But I wasn't considering active options at their best. I was considering active options [I]on average[/I], vs passive options [I]on average[/I]. If a Battlemaster is actually using their options ultra-optimally (which usually means going for accuracy rather than damage, but that's a separate conversation), they will [I]completely[/I] blow the Champion out of the water. I had assumed that the designers would have [I]intended[/I] such a thing, and thus didn't consider it. I looked exclusively at long-run (e.g., full-adventuring-day, which is actually a LOT [Citation needed.] Seriously. If you're going to say that "most people have fun playing it and it is massively popular," you have to demonstrate it. Otherwise, you're just making baseless assertions. Show me the surveys where the Champion is "massively popular." Show me the response reports that indicate most people who play it are having fun. Since I know you can't do either of those things, we're back to the theoretical side of things, which we at least [B][I]can[/I][/B] discuss. And I'm totally willing to do so! But throwing out these appeals to popularity when [I]you don't actually [B]know[/B] what is popular[/I] isn't useful to the discussion. I absolutely argue that it would significantly increase player satisfaction. I also would argue that this "improve balance by 5%" (whatever that even [I]means[/I]) is almost certainly under-selling the situation. Just as, for example, I think the complete lack of a spellcasting class of comparable simplicity to the Champion is a serious waste. Y'know what fandom would love a spellcasting class that just points and shoots a few core spells over and over again? [I]Harry Potter fans[/I]. They're legion, WAY bigger than D&D. Even if you only get 1% of all Harry Potter fans that don't currently play D&D to start playing D&D, you'd be making a HUGE positive impact on play. And that's why this sort of thing is so complicated, like the video that was linked earlier. (Thanks for that video by the way [USER=6687260]@Don Durito[/USER] ! It was very informative.) Something can be unbalanced despite (for example) having a [I]low[/I] win rate and [I]reasonable[/I] pick rate, if it's something where low-skill players almost always lose and high-skill players almost always win. These are, of course, metrics of analysis for League of Legends (using the Akali example from that video), but there are other metrics that can, quite easily, be deceptive. What if Champion is popular [I]despite[/I] not being particularly good, because [I]it's the only game in town[/I]? It could quite easily be that there's a huge chunk of the D&D audience that [I]desperately wants[/I] a better Champion, but because [I]there is no such thing,[/I] they settle for what they're offered. I mean, by this logic, Comcast must be an [I]excellent[/I] internet service provider, because they have millions of customers, and people almost never drop their internet service! ...except that that completely ignores the fact that [I]most ISPs are local monopolies[/I]. Never underestimate the possibility of a [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice']Hobson's Choice[/URL]. The PF example would be more of a meaningful argument if PF weren't "the previous product with the serial numbers filed off." As much as I appreciate some of the actually-new things PF1e did, 90% or more of the actual [I]game[/I] (not the adventures or setting) is "take 3.5e exactly as written and tweak two things." Which is why Pathfinder 2e came into existence, because [I]even the PF devs[/I] openly admitted, "This system is [I]too broken[/I] for us to keep trying to fix it." Which, uh, yeah. Pretty much an open-and-shut example of "balanced =/= popular," among other things. Popularity [I]can be[/I] a useful metric for testing balance. It's far from universally useful, let alone the [I]only[/I] metric. In fact, in many games, unbalanced options ARE popular, BECAUSE they're unbalanced--the term in game design theory is "dominant strategy." People [I]will[/I] use exploitative strategies if they exist; not everyone, but most people. Because...why wouldn't you try to succeed more, if you were permitted to? Even if there isn't a hard win condition, there are [I]success[/I] conditions (succeeding on rolls in D&D, for example), and unbalanced options may make people hyperfocus on them because they generically do better with those success conditions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll
Top