Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7446034" data-attributes="member: 6919838">A couple points... In reverse order... Some analysis can serve an overall analysis by micro zooming on on individual elements but it can also harm the large analysis if it paint a cockeyed picture.An egregious example would be focusing on damage but ignoring hit chance.Thats why larger system tests in actual play conditions are better.About not being about weighing flex vs restrictive... You listed maximizing the choices you have etc  options which seems to be about flexibility but added while blah blah is met seems restrictive.As for "not viable" i feel that is as useful for the minmaxer position as perfect balance is for the other side and used for the same purpose.What is viable?If your top best output choice as a martial is 50. Then you have two 43s Then a half dozen at 35 then plenty in the 20-30 where is the not viable line drawn?For some, that gap between 50 and 43 is "not viable" from the highest dpr blah blah crowd. (I know 53 is higher, just making up ratios. For others, its likely between the 43 bunch and 35 etc.As in **outside of minmaxing** viable does not mean "best or close to it" but means enough to get the job done and i suggest that in 5e most any even,moderately straightforward build that is not crippled by contrary choices is "viable".I do agree that imbalance or the appearance of imbalance is easier to spot and to imagine. Its gets moreso.But, for RPGs the reason i am not willing to see high degree of "provable numerical balance" used as a constraint on design is that you cannot really see balance without locking in and cutting out the heart of the RPG.In a video game, where the designer controls the challenges, they have locked in "need" to plug their "balance capabilities" into. In a TTRPG each and every campaign is very different, each party is different and so the things on the need side are not static.Question... How important is the cleric's dpr in a party of four  with one cleric and no other source of healing?How important is it in a party of four with three?To me, the former is a situation ehere its likely many of the slots and actiins get spent on healing in tough fights.In the latter, there is tons of healing potential so a lot more slots and actions will go to damage.Thats just one of many aspects where we look for **balanceability** instead of equality. As i once described it most things need to have three situations that can be seen and will be seen in pkay without breaking setting.1 case where its top end - best or close2 case where its average aka - viable3 case where it is sub par enough to make it very tough - something else carries the weight.Ideally these can be different situations that can occur in the same encounter frequently.The key is that as long as those breaks are big enough to impact outcomes - not just one excel sum - then you have balanceable. That means you dont need things so shackled to the math as some in the "balance by cpunting jelly beans" want and also requires less sacrifice.</blockquote>

Verification