D&D 5E What does balance mean to you?

[Krachek]

Sorry to be the bearer of unfortunate news, but there isn't one "true" way of playing D&d.

Home brew is at the heart of DnD. It is just what I say.

Most DM who complains here are already making their home-brew version of the game,
You don't need to change the rules to turn into home brew.
But when they post here, they often intend that the game should support their needs as if it was an obvious way of playing.
But the core game cannot equally support all homebrew style in the world.

 

[Hussar]

BTW, I believe you've forgotten a few rules for 2E 2wf other than not using a shield. Or were just playing it wrong.
Like:
*The -2/-4 attack roll penalties
*The fact that your 2nd weapon has to be a size category smaller & lighter. Unless it's a dagger.
So at best your rolling an extra d6 & won't hit quite as often as if you were using just 1 weapon.

You think I'm gimping myself by not sometimes not dealing around 3+? extra damage/round IF I hit with that 2nd weapon.
And I think you're gimping yourself for all those times where you'll miss attacks & deal NO damage with your primary weapon thanks to rolling with a penalty.
Looks balanced to me.

Spending a single weapon proficiency for ambidexterity dropped the -2/-4 to 0/-2, a second weapon prof to specialize in two weapon fighting (available to all classes) dropped it to 0/0. Considering your fighter started with 4 weapon profs, with a 9 int giving +1 non-weapon prof (which can be exchanged as per the Complete Fighter's Guide - which is where we find Ambidexterity and 2 Weapon Fighting), it was trivially easy to negate the penalties.

So, you used a longsword/short sword for d8/d6 damage - effectively doubling your damage round at the cost of a couple of weapon profs which weren't going to be much use anyway and 1 point of AC.

Note, also, since any Str bonuses applied to all attacks, you were very, very unlikely just to be doing d8/d6 damage. Also, since many opponents are larger than man sized, you were actually doing d12/d8 damage per round frequently. And, since weapon specs were available to fighters at 1st level, you were actually getting 5/2 attacks, not 2/1 with your primary attack at +1/hit and +2 to damage.

Note, as per the Complete Fighter, this was available to clerics as well.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

For me, balance is the art of, as a table, satisfying everyone's wants and needs from their playtime, and working towards us all enjoying ourselves. Sure, it's mostly mythical but the intent has guided us and so far, over the years, been a success.

And yes, this does mean we don't worry about a particular element of the game, a race/weapon/feat combo. Not every element plays the same at every table - and if it is a problem at a given table on a given day, it will become apparent and we'll deal with it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Spending a single weapon proficiency for ambidexterity dropped the -2/-4 to 0/-2, a second weapon prof to specialize in two weapon fighting (available to all classes) dropped it to 0/0. Considering your fighter started with 4 weapon profs, with a 9 int giving +1 non-weapon prof (which can be exchanged as per the Complete Fighter's Guide - which is where we find Ambidexterity and 2 Weapon Fighting), it was trivially easy to negate the penalties.

So, you used a longsword/short sword for d8/d6 damage - effectively doubling your damage round at the cost of a couple of weapon profs which weren't going to be much use anyway and 1 point of AC.

Note, also, since any Str bonuses applied to all attacks, you were very, very unlikely just to be doing d8/d6 damage. Also, since many opponents are larger than man sized, you were actually doing d12/d8 damage per round frequently. And, since weapon specs were available to fighters at 1st level, you were actually getting 5/2 attacks, not 2/1 with your primary attack at +1/hit and +2 to damage.

Note, as per the Complete Fighter, this was available to clerics as well.

Wow, that is even worse than I remembered - are you mixing some later 'Player Option' stuff in there?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Wait, what? I was with you up until this. I guarantee you I can break 5e with about a dozen build choices that I'd argue are now so well known that I'd wager even you could rattle off a few of them off the top of your head. Do you really think that these builds aren't clear winners? They can mean the difference of about 50-60 DPR, and that's just on the DPR builds.

And I guarantee you can't, because the players don't dictate or control the game world in D&D. There's this person called the DM who does. Anyone who thinks they can "break the game" as a player usually only plays with a certain playstyle of a DM, and then they have to drink a big bottle of humble juice when they play in a game that doesn't cater to their playstyle. So if we're talking about guarantees here, I guarantee that you can do whatever build you want, and you will not "break the game" in my sessions, and that's with me being fair and not doing anything out of the ordinary to go out of my way to hinder your PC over anyone else.

 

[cmad1977]

And I guarantee you can't, because the players don't dictate or control the game world in D&D. There's this person called the DM who does. Anyone who thinks they can "break the game" as a player usually only plays with a certain playstyle of a DM, and then they have to drink a big bottle of humble juice when they play in a game that doesn't cater to their playstyle. So if we're talking about guarantees here, I guarantee that you can do whatever build you want, and you will not "break the game" in my sessions, and that's with me being fair and not doing anything out of the ordinary to go out of my way to hinder your PC over anyone else.

Yup. You can't break the game. It's just more game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[steeldragons]

First, @kbrakke , have some XP. This is thoughtful and evocative thread on a fascinating, and obviously myriad, topic. So, kudos to you on that.

So to further my understanding of this game and perhaps help others see different aspects of this wonderful game we all presumably love, I have some questions.

1- What does balance mean to you?

"Balance," to me, is some gamer/game designer buzzword jargon. Like other subcultural jargon, it is particularly ill-defined and/or has multiple definitions depending on who you ask, and hold, essentially no meaning outside of the users of that industry/subculture. i.e. It's a "made up term" with a "made up definition" that people want to use and treat as incredibly "serious business" in the "gaming" or "RPG" subculture.

For the most part, it seems to be used as both attack and defense by those who presume there to be a mathematical or "objective equality" between options and choices within the game. Feat to feat. Class to class. Race to race. Subclass feature to subclass feature. {perhaps most importantly to most] "Damage per Round" to "Damage per round." Everything should be "equally good" or, at least, not "noticeably worse" than something else.

A "belief," since really that's all that it is [not some objective truth], that the numbers (i.e. how "power" is generally marked and tracked in RPGs and other games) must be "balanced." If these options aren't ["properly"] "balanced," then somehow, someone is not capable of having as much "fun" as another, or isn't capable of "fulfilling their role" within the party adequately, or generally succeeding in [if not some misguided concept of "winning"] a given encounter or the entire game.

This is, of course, nonsense and objectively untrue [for D&D, if not all TTRPGs]. Yet, people will get into very lengthy and/or heated debate over the presence or lack thereof of this perceived industry buzzword, "balance," which up to a couple of decades ago, no one would ever hear at a D&D table.

I would say, at it's simplest and most easily adopted use, it would mean, "fairness." But "fairness" is not at all dependent on a strict accounting of numerical benefit or equal powers. The mythological fallacy of "Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard" was never a question of "balance." The Fighter had abilities and powers that were [vastly] superior for success at lower levels, as compared to the M-U/Mage. The Mages, then, gained vastly superior abilities and powers at higher levels. The classes were designed to be "balanced" more of less "fairly" for over the length of a campaign, as the game was written and presumed to be experienced. They "evened each other out," as it were.

Have there been things in D&D's history that have been obviously "unbalanced," a.k.a. over- or under-powered or blatantly unfair/uneven? Absolutely. But "balance" as a core design concept is largely a fabricated construct of the industry that people now use and toss aaround as if it is some gospel objective truth.

And, simply, it is not.

2 - When you balance an encounter, what is your desired outcome for that encounter? Do you balance combat on the encounter level, the adventuring day level, or the campaign level?

I don't "balance" encounters. I generate an encounter based on the story and internal consistency of the game world. Yes, of course, I try to keep things, generally, manageable much of the time. You're going to see giant rats and skeletons at low levels. But if a those skeletons are minions of a necromantic lich-dragon that is waaay out of your league, and you don't take the cues or clues [or outright proclamations] seriously and try to engage at 2nd level, then, yeah, you're probably going to get TPK'd unless you have enough sense to run away or otherwise try to talk your way out of things.

The "day level?" Like, oh you're running low on spells so we should just let you take a break here...when you've just completed a heavy combat in the midst of an enemy fortress, the alarm has been raised, and everyone is looking for you? "Sure, yeah, here's a quiet room no one's going to find you in for an hour. Can I get you some tea? There's some nice hot tea in the room too. Blanket? Sure." That's not happening.

"Campaign level" I am taking to mean, like I said, "am I going to throw generally level appropriate stuff (enemies, traps/hazards, environmental factors, etc etc...) for the party's general level?" The answer there is, "Over the course of the campaign? Generally, yes."

It may be possible to design encounters in this way, but it is certainly not how I approach creating an encounter or adventure (and definitely not a campaign). One of the key elements -if not THE key element- of a successful D&D game is that the group/table (including the DM) is generating this story together. What the characters DO is what leads to what happens and where they end up. What they do and where they end up do not ebb and flow to suit what they are capable of handling!

They can, sure. Encounters can just be made up on the fly or things altered if stuff is getting slow/boring for too long...that's part of my job as DM...But it not something that can be "deisgned/planned for"...because what the characters are going to do, where they'll go, how they will CHOOSE to use the features and treasures and magic at their disposal is completely up to them.

How the elements of the world respond to those doings, goings, and choices, that's how up to me[the DM], and how the campaign happens. Not by "balancing encounters."

3 - When you look at your players/other players what things make you feel like something is not balanced?

If things are obviously "unfair" or "uneven" in a given confrontation -innumerable enemies, some skill challenge that [I, as DM know is] set to 50, one class gaining a feature that allows them 5d10 additional damage on attacks that no one else gets- then they could be said to be "unbalanced" (or as some here are preferring, "imbalanced"). But, then, if a PC has a magic weapon that other PCs don't have, and that weapon let's them do extra damage other PCs can't match...is that "unbalanced?" Is it even "unfair?" As a DM I have NO compulsion whatsoever to say, "Well now I need to make sure everyone else gets a magic item or device that let's them deal an extra xdX so we're all even." That's just part of the game, the results of players' choices, and how the fates have swung.

So, I'm not really sure how to answer this...I suppose the best/closest I could come up with would be to use another industry/subcultural jargon term..."broken." If something is obviously, objectively, "broken" then I would/we can say it is "unbalanced."

4 - If you claim that you do not worry about balance in your encounters, what are your overall desired outcomes from combats?

My who what now?

I don't have "desired outcomes" for combats. I mean, as a matter of "fun" for the table, my HOPE is that things will go well and the characters will succeed in whatever the encounter is. Live to fight another day, topple another evil, and all of that. But I have no -and certainly don't "design" for- any desired outcome of a combat...again, other than as is befitting the situation and internal consistency of the game world.

I mean, I'll -again in a general sense- think to myself, "This encounter/trap/interaction/whatever it is should be simple[/medium/hard]." or "This climactic endgame battle with the BBEG should be an amazing cinematic throwdown masterpiece!"...Whether either of those things ever ends up being close to true, however, is in the players' hands, dependent on their choices and the actions of their characters.

5 - If something seems imbalanced to you, how do you go about fixing it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "fix it."

If you mean for something like a class option or something from the book? I'd probably "just say no." (child of the 80's and all) and not allow it into the game.

For a clearly unevenly matched combat situation gone awry or a player having a "bad dice" night whose beloved longtime character is on the brink of death, an extremely risky attempt at a nigh-impossible skill check or somesuch? I'm not sure there'd be much I could do, other than mitigate the foes/reactions to be more lenient on the PCs, have them be captured or try to force a surrender or something...

Ultimately, again, this is all in the realm of player[PC] choices and actions...the outcomes of most- if not all- situations, "unbalanced" or not, will be decided by them.

6 - In video games or card games something is considered balanced if it has an overall 50% win rate against the field. A character in a fighting game would be imbalanced if it consistently won more than half its matches. Or a deck in Magic would be OP if it was more than 50% to beat the field. In dungeons and dragons that sounds absurd. My parties are probably around 100% win rate. Do either of these numbers make sense to you? Would you play in a game where the players "won" half the time? What does that mean to you?

"Do either of these numbers make sense to [me]?" Not in the slightest. A game with 100% success is no a game. What is the point? You know you'll succeed in all things, every time. Where's the challenge? Where's the -what many point to, rightly, as the core point of playing at all- fun? "Oh look another dead dragon and treasure horde. Gold star for us. We all level up together! Yay!"

I don't know if "50%" is a realistic expectation for D&D. I certain hope a party does better than 50%...but the crux and difficulty in this question is, again, jargon. What do you mean, "...where the players 'won' half the time?"

Do you mean "won" as in they lived through it? "Won," as in they succeeded in the given task or goal of the overall mission/adventure? "Won," as in found the treasure and didn't have to kill anyone? "Won," as in killed all of the monsters but didn't ALL die, themselves? "Won," as in none of them died?...or didn't have to expend significant resources? ..or?...or?...or?

If we run away, and no one died, did we win? If we try to RP haggle, but still (either from lousy roleplaying or a flubbed dice roll) pay full price, did we win? Do they count toward my 50%?

This is something of a meaningless question without an answer. I would certainly hope any group I played would succeed more than 50% of the time. But I have no desire to play in a group where success is a foregone conclusion (100%).

"What does that mean to [me]?" Absolutely nothing.

As a rule, I think trying to apply "video game" numbers/statistics to anything related to D&D/TTRPGs or "games/gaming" in general is a fool's errand. It produces mistaken and unrealistic expectations and is not particularly useful in any respect.

 

[shoak1]

Excellent thread.

Balance is crucial in a strategy game, but not that much in a role playing game.
A lot of recent threads about the champion, resting, exp budget are about balancing a strategy game.
Caring too much of balance in a role play game is a dead end.

"Playing DnD is an exercise in collaborative creation." It is what you can read in the preface on the PHB. Hopefully you can turn the game into an "exercise of competitive & strategic dice rolling".
But then you are starting a deep home brew adaptation of the game.

Nothing seems imbalanced to me currently. It might be imbalanced by someone else's standard, but I'm not certain "balance" as some would have it is much of a priority in an RPG.

Let me begin by saying I chafe at the idea (oft repeated in these forums as if it's gospel) that D and D is just a roleplaying game. It is equal parts miniatures/strategy/rpg to me - historically different editions have put different emphasis on each element. My group consists of gamers, not roleplayers - so balance is crucial to us and defines the game.

1- What does balance mean to you?

Balance to me means the world is a dangerous place and if you are gonna go out there and adventure, you may die - so be on top of your game. Balance means lots of choices that are not clear-cut. Balance means a pre-created environment that is challenging and not subject to arbitrary change by an omnipotent DM.

2 - When you balance an encounter, what is your desired outcome for that encounter?

In all three ways - campaign level in the sense of a ticking clock that regulates the rests while giving the players choices of when to use these limited resources - adventuring day level in that I balance the encounters based on a full day - and encounter level in terms of making sure that each encounter provides a wealth of challenges.

3 - When you look at your players/other players what things make you feel like something is not balanced?

Clear cut universally chosen options.

4 - If you claim that you do not worry about balance in your encounters, what are your overall desired outcomes from combats?

n/a balance is a necessity

5 - If something seems imbalanced to you, how do you go about fixing it?

I don't fix it. But because I have all encounters predesigned, I can balance them relatively easily so this rarely happens. My players would hate the idea of me using my DM wand to retroactively balance an encounter.

6 - My parties are probably around 100% win rate. .....Would you play in a game where the players "won" half the time? What does that mean to you?

"OMG we soooooo almost died there" is my desired outcome - I want to see the players win, but know they won because they played well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Let me begin by saying I chafe at the idea (oft repeated in these forums as if it's gospel) that D and D is just a roleplaying game. It is equal parts miniatures/strategy/rpg to me -

I feel RPG or RP gets treated too narrowly, as just speaking in character or just the 'social pillar,' combat (tactical, possibly miniatures) and exploration are also very much part of an RPG, not things that crowd out RP.

Balance to me means the world is a dangerous place and if you are gonna go out there and adventure, you may die - so be on top of your game.

That's a campaign or game objective that Balance could be tuned to deliver, or a balanced game could be efficiently used to achieve...

Balance means lots of choices that are not clear-cut.

Yes. An obvious-best choice, lack of choice, meaningless choices, and trap choices are all examples of imbalance.

Balance means a pre-created environment that is challenging and not subject to arbitrary change by an omnipotent DM.

The DM is essentially omnipotent, and can easily get away with passing of an arbitrarily improvised environment for an arbitrarily pre-created one. Balance can't prevent that, though imbalance can make it a good idea...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Spending a single weapon proficiency for ambidexterity dropped the -2/-4 to 0/-2, a second weapon prof to specialize in two weapon fighting (available to all classes) dropped it to 0/0. Considering your fighter started with 4 weapon profs, with a 9 int giving +1 non-weapon prof (which can be exchanged as per the Complete Fighter's Guide - which is where we find Ambidexterity and 2 Weapon Fighting), it was trivially easy to negate the penalties.

So, you used a longsword/short sword for d8/d6 damage - effectively doubling your damage round at the cost of a couple of weapon profs which weren't going to be much use anyway and 1 point of AC.

Note, also, since any Str bonuses applied to all attacks, you were very, very unlikely just to be doing d8/d6 damage. Also, since many opponents are larger than man sized, you were actually doing d12/d8 damage per round frequently. And, since weapon specs were available to fighters at 1st level, you were actually getting 5/2 attacks, not 2/1 with your primary attack at +1/hit and +2 to damage.

Note, as per the Complete Fighter, this was available to clerics as well.

Wait...I admit it's been a looong time since I played second edition, but didn't weapon specialization kick in at 3rd level? And didn't it give you one rank higher multiple attacks, which would be 3/2 not 5/2?