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

[Xeviat]

1- What does balance mean to you?

There are two kinds of balance in D&D for me: Player Balance and Encounter Balance. Player balance means that no builds overshadow similar builds, and that no options are so vastly better or worse than others to be automatic choices or never choices. Encounter Balance means that the system allows the DM to make encounters that will feel the way they want them to feel: hard fights are hard, easy fights are easy, etc.

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?

Encounter and day. Campaign level is more about feel and less about mechanical balance when you zoom out that far.

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

Two characters aren't balanced with each other if they're trying to do similar things and one overshadows the other constantly, or when one character is so weak as to feel worthless to the party. A very strong character can make multiple characters feel useless (a 3E Druid could easily overshadow a fighter with their companion and still give a wizard a run for their money).

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

I don't require all encounters to be "balanced"; I just want the feel be what I'm going for. I don't want the climactic fight to be a pushover, and I don't want a random goblin pair to kill the party.

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

I'm more likely to boost weak things than nerf strong things, especially when both look like they should be valid.

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?

This depends on the feel of the game. D&D is more about the story. You could run a "hard mode" board game style D&D adventure, where the encounters are designed to be "fair" but the DM is running antagonistically and is trying purposefully to kill the players. But that isn't normal. At least not for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shiroiken]

1- What does balance mean to you?

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?

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

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

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

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?

1 - A Dex/Acrobatics check.
I generally find that the problem of balance isn't that big in 5E. The problems that I have aren't that things are too powerful, but that things are powerful enough. There are a lot of feats that are just not worth giving up +2 to your primary ability score. It's not that GWF is OP, it's that too many things are UP! The only thing I've actually felt is OP is Sharpshooter... and NOT because of the -5/+10 ability, but because the ability to ignore both cover and long range (stacking with the archery fighting style) allows for an archer to fight with such an overwhelming advantage against almost every foe (spellcasters are the only thing that have a reasonable chance).

2 - I do not balance encounters. I design areas of challenges and give the players the freedom to do what they will. I've had 2nd level players attack a dragon (yes, they all died), and I've had 8th level characters run away from kobolds. In my last campaign the average encounter (according to the DMG) was about 1.5x-2x the Deadly threshold, and the party averaged about 4 or so a day with the occasional short rest. I never told the party when to rest, but let them know the consequences of time lapse (monster's preparing against a second assault, etc.).

3 - The only time I've felt things being unbalanced is if you have two people trying to do the same thing, and one is clearly superior to another. In AD&D I've felt this when I had a lower level character, and in 3E I felt this when someone played the same class with higher ability scores. Since 5E provides such a variety of things that can be done, all in a variety of way, this doesn't happen as often IME.

4 - The players have a level of fun, and that it doesn't take too long to get back to the game. Most combats, I like a level of risk, even if it's just the risk of one enemy getting away to sound an alarm. Sometimes an easy fight is fun, but more often I'd like to get back to the rest of the game, rather than waste time rolling out the inevitable.

5 - Houserules. 5E is designed to be customized, and I feel that too many people are beholden to RAW. If something doesn't work, change it!

6 - D&D is completely different from any other type of game. There were some boardgames that were close (Heroquest comes to mind), but they still had teams, where the "DM" was actually trying to beat you, rather than be a neutral arbiter. Because of this, it's not fair to make a comparison.

Oh, and in any kind of competitive game, there is no balanced measurement. Player skill is not balanced, and that is the primary factor in most competitive games (or it's second to luck). I play boardgames all the time, and everyone knows who the "good players" are for each game, and they make sure to keep them in check as much as possible. Back when I played CCGs, any deck that didn't have a win ratio in the 70% range wasn't worth taking to a tournament.

 

[Hussar]

I've defined balance like this:

Balance in an RPG means that no given choice is so much better than other choices that not choosing that option is deliberately gimping your character.​

As an example, I always point to two weapon fighting in 2e. There was just no reason not to do it for any melee character. You doubled your damage output for the cost of 1 point of AC. It was unbalanced.

 

[Krachek]

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.

 

[Ratskinner]

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?

I don't believe in balance as anything other than a lack of imbalance.

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?

Specific outcomes may vary with the situation. For the most part, though, I want to make them interesting. That can happen either because of external narrative goings-on, or because the encounter itself has features that make it interesting.

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

Imbalance, to me, occurs when one character dominates the game and its prep in such a way that makes it impossible to make it interesting for everyone. The classic example is one PC that is soo much tougher and stronger that the DM has trouble choosing adversaries that can challenge the strong PC without overwhelming the rest of the party. But this can happen in other ways. If a build is strong in "trump" powers (mind control, super speed, etc.), they can obviate the need for the rest of the party.

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

Same as any encounter, to be interesting and make it worthwhile for players to show up.

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

Honestly, the groups I'm with now is constantly hacking rules. So, we hack...

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?

Yes, but that game wouldn't be D&D...or anything all that similar to it. You'd need a system where every combat wasn't win-or-die for the PCs (not just combat, for that matter). D&D manages to neatly avoid that as even a possibility 90% of the time, because it was originally build on that murderhobo stucture. Killing 'em and taking their stuff is the point of the game. Lack of solid goal structures beyond the "fight monsters, get XP, level up" treadmill, make that very difficult. There's just not enough mechanics to support multiple or complex goals, and "beating it up and taking its stuff" will always be the "trump"in D&D.

IMO.

 

[ccs]

I've defined balance like this:

Balance in an RPG means that no given choice is so much better than other choices that not choosing that option is deliberately gimping your character.​

As an example, I always point to two weapon fighting in 2e. There was just no reason not to do it for any melee character. You doubled your damage output for the cost of 1 point of AC. It was unbalanced.

How about "It didn't fit the concept of my character."?

Just because the math says _____ doesn't make that the correct choice.
The right answer if the question was merely "How to maximize my melee damage.", sure.
But my question has always been how do I realize the character I'm envisioning gamewise.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Balance is crucial in a strategy game, but not that much in a role playing game.

In a competitive game, fairness is critical. It doesn't matter if some choices are clearly better than others, so long as every competitor has the same access to the same choices. (Fairness is a lower bar than balance.)

However, in an rpg, choices have an added dimension of meaning, for instance...

How about "It didn't fit the concept of my character."?.

...then it's clearly a meaningful choice, so it's critical it also be a viable one, so you can be true to that concept while continuing to contribute...

 

[Roadkill101]

Balance to me doesn't exist. As a gm I have to be flexible and highly adaptable to the players actions/reactions of any given moment. So when things start to get too rough or easy, I find a way to shift the scales through an in-game change to the current situation, like having the still strong and powerful dragon take to the sky while thanking the party for a nice bit of morning exercise.

 

[Hussar]

How about "It didn't fit the concept of my character."?

Just because the math says _____ doesn't make that the correct choice.
The right answer if the question was merely "How to maximize my melee damage.", sure.
But my question has always been how do I realize the character I'm envisioning gamewise.

Well, that goes back to "deliberately gimping" your character. Sure, there's no reason you cannot play a fighter armed with a spork, but, at the end of the day, the most rational choice is to pick up something that does a little more damage.

And, imbalance like this leads to truncated concepts. Yup, you could, in 2e say, play a sword and board fighter with a mace. Certainly you could do that. Great. Now, your character is dealing half as much damage and getting hit pretty much exactly as often (5% less often) than my fighter.

Now, whether that bothers your or not isn't the issue. The point is, it's imbalanced. There's no reason that my character should double your damage. There's no particular reason that once concept should be that much better than all other concepts, unless, of course, you want to funnel the game towards that one concept.

Think of it this way. My character gets +5 levels at chargen than your character. Shouldn't be a problem right? After all, balance is secondary to concept, so, the fact that I have 5 more levels than you shouldn't bother you in the least.

Somehow I think that most groups would be unhappy with that arrangement. And, even if they are happy, it's still not balanced.

Now, in a balanced system, concept comes first. After all, your concept and my concept are roughly in the same ballpark when it comes to effectiveness, so, no worries. You can take your concept, I'll take mine, and everyone's groovy. but, in a balanced system, the most rational choice is to take the most effective option. Do you have to? Nope, but, the system is certainly pushing you that way. So, longswords were king in AD&D. Two weapon fighting was king in 2e. Casters at higher levels ruled 3e.

5e, OTOH, is largely pretty solidly balanced. I'm drawing a blank so far on any really clear winners. Dex over Str maybe, but, the jury's still out on that one.

 

[TwoSix]

Imbalance is when any mechanical decision pushes out another competing mechanical decision in a related niche at a character building level, such that either the player's aesthetic vision or the overall mechanical effectiveness is compromised, unless that imbalance is introduced for reasons of supporting the game's tropes or conceits.