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

[shoak1]

Well, most of us do all like to presume our own preferences, choices and styles, are somehow equally appreciated by "many, many of us" and/or somehow universal or objectively true.

Very true, but the often didactic form that that presumption takes is difficult to not be offended by (or to react in kind to.....).

 

[shoak1]

I suppose you could say that 3.x was committed to imbalance, 4e committed to balance, and 5e just has a fear of commitment...

OMG well said lol (Steve applauds Tony's insight)

 

[Sacrosanct]

This is an example of what frustrates me and other gamists. The "DM is subjective and everyone plays different" argument is a nihilist excuse for poor balance. Just because some guys play all combat encounters, or some play all roleplaying encounters, or some DMs throw all ranged attacks at people, doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't balance the game. Balance is done for the norm/mean/average and is on a sliding scale of subjectiveness as you narrow/expand your focus. For instance, when you narrow the scope down to balancing combat stuff against combat stuff, the subjectiveness narrows as well. If you have 2 feats, one of which gives +3 with swords, and the other +1 with swords (and they don't stack) it is entirely factual - and not the least bit subjective - to say the two feats are imbalanced against each other.

There are many, many of us that play D and D as a tactical challenge. Combat abilities can and must be balanced between each other to have a good game. Of course a silly DM can throw a monkey wrench into things by having all ranged combats or other ridiculous scenarios,and of course there are some people don't have combat encounters - but that doesn't then render balance pointless or subjective from a design view - it just renders it pointless to those people. And if you are one of those people, why would you argue against modifications? It doesn't impact you anyways!!!

Firstly, I don't appreciate being called a nihilist. Secondly, it's not true at all, and you're missing a very important context. That is, D&D is not designed to be a tactical only game. If that's what you prefer and you like to play, more power to you, but you do not have much a leg to stand on when you complain about how something isn't working or say the game is "bad" when you're ignoring the core premise of what the game is built on.

And what is that? The fact that it's an open world RPG, not just a tactical boardgame. Why is that important? Because it assumes the core game will be played in a living world, where every creature has motivations, and the terrain and regions all connect like a living world would be, and not played with one grid based battle after the other. Those factors have to be taken into account then, and they very much affect the "balance" of the game.

For example, if you play just tactical encounters, then one feat with +3 is going to appear much more powerful than a +1 feat. But when you factor in how the game is designed to be played in an open world where that +3 feat has additional restrictions on when it may apply over the +1 feat, then the balance issues become a non issue and they in fact are balanced.

Let's look at the sharpshooter feat. It's always mentioned as a broken imbalanced feat way more powerful than any other feat. In an arena style or tactical style of play, I can see why that may be. But that's not how the game is designed. All of the other pillars are just as important and emphasized in the design window. So there will be times where the PC won't be able to use that feat very often (out of ammo, not in combat, etc), but someone with the dungeon delver feat will be using that constantly during a dungeon exploration. Is a feat OP when it's can't be used that often?

So while I get that "many, many" of you like D&D as a tactical challenge, that's only 1/3rd of what the game is designed to be, and you ignoring or placing low emphasis on the other 2/3 is not a game design issue. That's a you issue for choosing to play in a way the game is not designed for. Especially when factors in that other 2/3 of the game do impact the mechanical balance. It's like complaining casters are way too overpowered and the game balance is off when you let them rest whenever they want, ignore spell components, etc. Or saying warlocks and monks are overpowered when you allow short rests after every encounter. I.e., your choices are skewing some things to be more impactual than they would be in a style of play that the game is designed for.

 

[iserith]

For an encounter, I have an intention of making it negligible, easy, medium, hard, very hard, or impossible. If I achieve my intention in the execution of the encounter I've achieved balance. Picking the right set of challenge levels for a games encounters is important to making the game fun for your group, and the right choice will vary greatly depending on your players' preferences.

If you create a "very hard" challenge and the players use a combination of good tactics and luck to easily achieve victory, did you "achieve balance?" Or would you say you (or the game system) failed?

 

[shoak1]

Firstly, I don't appreciate being called a nihilist. Secondly, it's not true at all, and you're missing a very important context. That is, D&D is not designed to be a tactical only game. If that's what you prefer and you like to play, more power to you, but you do not have much a leg to stand on when you complain about how something isn't working or say the game is "bad" when you're ignoring the core premise of what the game is built on.

And what is that? The fact that it's an open world RPG, not just a tactical boardgame. Why is that important? Because it assumes the core game will be played in a living world, where every creature has motivations, and the terrain and regions all connect like a living world would be, and not played with one grid based battle after the other. Those factors have to be taken into account then, and they very much affect the "balance" of the game.

For example, if you play just tactical encounters, then one feat with +3 is going to appear much more powerful than a +1 feat. But when you factor in how the game is designed to be played in an open world where that +3 feat has additional restrictions on when it may apply over the +1 feat, then the balance issues become a non issue and they in fact are balanced.

Let's look at the sharpshooter feat. It's always mentioned as a broken imbalanced feat way more powerful than any other feat. In an arena style or tactical style of play, I can see why that may be. But that's not how the game is designed. All of the other pillars are just as important and emphasized in the design window. So there will be times where the PC won't be able to use that feat very often (out of ammo, not in combat, etc), but someone with the dungeon delver feat will be using that constantly during a dungeon exploration. Is a feat OP when it's can't be used that often?

So while I get that "many, many" of you like D&D as a tactical challenge, that's only 1/3rd of what the game is designed to be, and you ignoring or placing low emphasis on the other 2/3 is not a game design issue. That's a you issue for choosing to play in a way the game is not designed for. Especially when factors in that other 2/3 of the game do impact the mechanical balance. It's like complaining casters are way too overpowered and the game balance is off when you let them rest whenever they want, ignore spell components, etc. Or saying warlocks and monks are overpowered when you allow short rests after every encounter. I.e., your choices are skewing some things to be more impactual than they would be in a style of play that the game is designed for.

Did you even read my post that you replied to? I addressed the very issues you speak about....

 

[iserith]

This is an example of what frustrates me and other gamists. The "DM is subjective and everyone plays different" argument is a nihilist excuse for poor balance. Just because some guys play all combat encounters, or some play all roleplaying encounters, or some DMs throw all ranged attacks at people, doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't balance the game. Balance is done for the norm/mean/average and is on a sliding scale of subjectiveness as you narrow/expand your focus. For instance, when you narrow the scope down to balancing combat stuff against combat stuff, the subjectiveness narrows as well. If you have 2 feats, one of which gives +3 with swords, and the other +1 with swords (and they don't stack) it is entirely factual - and not the least bit subjective - to say the two feats are imbalanced against each other.

There are many, many of us that play D and D as a tactical challenge. Combat abilities can and must be balanced between each other to have a good game. Of course a silly DM can throw a monkey wrench into things by having all ranged combats or other ridiculous scenarios,and of course there are some people don't have combat encounters - but that doesn't then render balance pointless or subjective from a design view - it just renders it pointless to those people. And if you are one of those people, why would you argue against modifications? It doesn't impact you anyways!!!

I would say that the rules are a game system and the DM, or what he or she creates and presents, is the game. Thus, it's incumbent upon the DM to use the game system to create the game in a manner he or she sees fit, according to what priorities he or she has. In your case, you would prioritize tactical challenges. So do I. But it's on me as DM to create challenges that fit my aesthetic using the game system. It doesn't "balance" itself (whatever "balance" means) and I don't think there should be any expectation that it will. It's a set of tools the DM can use to make the game he or she wants and nothing more.

 

[steeldragons]

Firstly, I don't appreciate being called a nihilist. Secondly, it's not true at all, and you're missing a very important context. That is, D&D is not designed to be a tactical only game. If that's what you prefer and you like to play, more power to you, but you do not have much a leg to stand on when you complain about how something isn't working or say the game is "bad" when you're ignoring the core premise of what the game is built on.

And what is that? The fact that it's an open world RPG, not just a tactical boardgame. Why is that important? Because it assumes the core game will be played in a living world, where every creature has motivations, and the terrain and regions all connect like a living world would be, and not played with one grid based battle after the other. Those factors have to be taken into account then, and they very much affect the "balance" of the game.

-snip-

So while I get that "many, many" of you like D&D as a tactical challenge, that's only 1/3rd of what the game is designed to be, and you ignoring or placing low emphasis on the other 2/3 is not a game design issue. That's a you issue for choosing to play in a way the game is not designed for. Especially when factors in that other 2/3 of the game do impact the mechanical balance. It's like complaining casters are way too overpowered and the game balance is off when you let them rest whenever they want, ignore spell components, etc. Or saying warlocks and monks are overpowered when you allow short rests after every encounter. I.e., your choices are skewing some things to be more impactual than they would be in a style of play that the game is designed for.

QFsomuchT

 

[shoak1]

I would say that the rules are a game system and the DM, or what he or she creates and presents, is the game. Thus, it's incumbent upon the DM to use the game system to create the game in a manner he or she sees fit, according to what priorities he or she has. In your case, you would prioritize tactical challenges. So do I. But it's on me as DM to create challenges that fit my aesthetic using the game system. It doesn't "balance" itself (whatever "balance" means) and I don't think there should be any expectation that it will. It's a set of tools the DM can use to make the game he or she wants and nothing more.

I'm not sure whether you still didn't read my post thoroughly or didn't understand the point I was making - I will assume the latter and phrase it a bit differently:

Comparing combat feats with non-combat feats is subjective based on play styles - so comparing "Read and write all languages" to "+3 with swords" is problematic. However, if you are comparing COMBAT feats, that subjectiveness narrows (note I said narrows, not disappears) considerably. There is still some subjectiveness because some people might play extreme dungeons only, or ranged combat only - but that doesn't mean you should eschew balance as a principal - continuing down that path is nihilism - it leads to the conclusion that nothing matters because everyone plays differently.

The designers can and should balance combat feats based on the assortment of monsters they present in the MM - which is a large assortment of different types, ranged, spell, and melee. They can and should balance based on a variety of locales - dungeons, urban, wild, etc. In other words, balance to the mean/average. This is still a bit subjective BUT it is done in thousands of games successfully. Extreme examples of play should not be considered in judging balance.

You say D and D is "a set of tools the DM can use to make the game he or she wants and nothing more" - that is a line of thinking that could and does alienate a substantial portion of the gaming world. I, like many, have an expectation that D and D be a complete game, not a collection of tools that must be endlessly tinkered with to work.

In the end, I agree with Tony Vargas' statement that D and D 5e suffers from a failure to commit to balance - and I think your attitude sums up 5e's problems (as percieved by me) in that regard.

 

[cmad1977]

You say D and D is "a set of tools the DM can use to make the game he or she wants and nothing more" - that is a line of thinking that could and does alienate a substantial portion of the gaming world. I, like many, have an expectation that D and D be a complete game, not a collection of tools that must be endlessly tinkered with to work.

I don't know if a time that D&D has been a 'complete game' and not 'a collection of tools'. So I don't understand where your expectation can possibly come from.
I have a feeling many, lots of, lots and lots, many many and a sizable portion of the fan base might disagree.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not sure whether you still didn't read my post thoroughly or didn't understand the point I was making - I will assume the latter and phrase it a bit differently:

Comparing combat feats with non-combat feats is subjective based on play styles - so comparing "Read and write all languages" to "+3 with swords" is problematic. However, if you are comparing COMBAT feats, that subjectiveness narrows (note I said narrows, not disappears) considerably. There is still some subjectiveness because some people might play extreme dungeons only, or ranged combat only - but that doesn't mean you should eschew balance as a principal - continuing down that path is nihilism - it leads to the conclusion that nothing matters because everyone plays differently.

I understood what you said, and I'm sure he did as well. Honestly, I think it's you who is not getting what I'm trying to say. The game is not "combat only", and you can't compare "combat feats against other combat feats" for this reason, as well as the reason that they all overlap under the greater umbrella. Combat, interaction, and exploration aren't all separate things that don't impact one another--they more often than not all overlap and impact each other. Exploration or interaction may allow you to overcome a combat challenge rather than combat. And vice versa. They are all intertwined. At least, that's how the game is designed to be played. See my examples I gave earlier about how some classes seem way OP to others depending on if you allow short rests all the time or not, or if you ignore other factors. Gaining and maintaining spell components is very much an out of combat action, but it very much impacts the combat encounter unless you (general you) choose to ignore it. So you can't really complain casters are OP when you're ignoring features built into the overall game that are meant to mitigate these things.

For example, even if you look at two "combat" feats: heavy armor mastery and grappling. A person who views D&D only at a tactical combat sim will probably say grappling is worthless, especially compared to heavy armor mastery that is basically a damage reduction mechanic, so it's not balanced. But D&D is not meant to be played as a tactical combat sim, and those out of combat factors play a huge role. Maybe they party is in a desert, ocean, or jungle, and wearing heavy armor imparts serious penalties or can't be used at all. Or someone casts heat metal on the armor wearing guy. In those cases, being able to grappler would have a much bigger impact than heavy armor feat.

The point is, is that you cannot separate the three pillars into different games. That's bad methodology for whatever analysis you want to do, because that's not how the game is designed to be played. If all you're doing is evaluating white room arena comparison, then some comparisons will seem very unbalanced because they are designed knowing that other factors from the other two pillars will have an impact in the typical game (like how the availability of spell components is not a combat pillar feature, but very much has an impact during the combat phase). So if you choose to ignore the other two pillars, the onus is on you to make those adjustments because you're the one skewing some abilities/feats to be artificially more impactful than others.

*Edit* Also, not myself, or anyone else, has said balance doesn't matter and/or nothing else matters. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop slinging around inferred insults of nihilism based on a strawman. The original context of my replies was around how someone said they can "break the game" by a build, and I disagreed. When myself and others have talked about balance, of course we all agree that there has to be a good foundation, but only that it's completely subjective, and all factors of how the game is designed to be played should be taken into account, and therefore if you're playing the game as an exception to this assumed design, then it's up to you to make adjustments, and not the game's fault of refusing to balance like you want.