D&D 5E What is balance to you, and why do you care (or don't)?

[Eric V]

One of the appeals of Basic D&D was the simplicity. I played AD&D back in the day but I was occasionally in games where the GM preferred basic, and the simplicity could be very refreshing. Again, as with my other post, I don't think this has to be a zero sum game. Maybe the old approach of having a basic and advanced edition is not economically sound (I don't know one way or the other on that, but I could see them not wanting to split their own fan base). However you could make a game modular so that groups can set the game to simple or advanced (take a page out of 2E with all its flagged optional rules for instance).

But why do we need whole classes dedicated to simplicity? Why can't an individual player just decide to play their class simply?

 

[Helldritch]

Personally I am fine with both approaches as they produce different results and can both be enjoyable for different reasons. When NPCs are built with different rules, that can be very good for things like allowing the GM to go more with being creative for the purposes of making adventures, it can also be easier to prepare if NPCs are not as bogged down by the same character creation method as PCs (presuming that method is itself a little involved). It just frees you up a bit on the GM side to play the world. On the other hand, there is fun in games where PCs and NPCs play by the same rules, especially if you are leaning into the game side of things. For instance, for horror, I tend to prefer systems where players characters and NPCS have different rules. But for my kung fu campaigns, where the fun is in competing against other martial heroes, I like them to follow the same rules.

I much prefer the later. But the previous comes from an old confusion.

That confusion comes from the fact that NPC can represent both playable characters and non playable characters. Is a dragon an NPC? Yes. So is the 4th level Sorcerer played by the DM or the side kick played by one of the players. NPC usually stands for character played by the DM. At one time, there was Monster NPC and NPC but distinction disappeared as soon as it appeared. But that distinction was crucial.

A monstrous NPC should not be on the same rule set as the characters. While a "standard" NPC should follow the same rules as a PC (barring some exceptional circumstances that is). Mixing the two types of NPCs simply muddied the water and made it so that it can be totally acceptable that a non monstrous NPC does not follow the same rules as a PC. Which sucks a bit IMO simply because some parts of the game simply fall apart because now, some concepts can be done with NPCs but not with PCs. This dichotomy is welcome by some and hated by others (or others like me, it is viewed with both contempt and appreciation). Using different rules for NPC ease the life of DM but at the cost of verisimilitude for a few players. Mainly those that are DMs themselves but also for some of the more rule oriented players in the game. Why can't I be casting X as a bonus action like X NPC did? Why can't I use this divine spell and this arcane spell? This NPC did it and should not be able according to the rules in the PHB. These kind of questions will not come to life until players mature enough in the game knowledge to start questioning the rule and the "strange" application made to NPCs. While if all non Monster NPC that comes from playable stock follows the same rules as PC, you will never get questions like this.

 

[Helldritch]

One of the appeals of Basic D&D was the simplicity. I played AD&D back in the day but I was occasionally in games where the GM preferred basic, and the simplicity could be very refreshing. Again, as with my other post, I don't think this has to be a zero sum game. Maybe the old approach of having a basic and advanced edition is not economically sound (I don't know one way or the other on that, but I could see them not wanting to split their own fan base). However you could make a game modular so that groups can set the game to simple or advanced (take a page out of 2E with all its flagged optional rules for instance).

5ed is already modular enough to achieve that. The "optional" rules in the DMG make it so.
Add in XGtE and TCoE (which I do not like for obvious reasons) and the game is quite more modular than 1ed/basic ever were. The need for house rule is quite minimal compared to the 4 or 5 pages I had in 1ed. All my house rules stand on 1 page and that page is not even full.

 

[Helldritch]

But why do we need whole classes dedicated to simplicity? Why can't an individual player just decide to play their class simply?

While I fully agree with you. It might be argued that simply removing simplicity makes it harder at first sight and might repel some because of the perceived complexity.

 

[Maxperson]

5ed is already modular enough to achieve that. The "optional" rules in the DMG make it so.
Add in XGtE and TCoE (which I do not like for obvious reasons) and the game is quite more modular than 1ed/basic ever were. The need for house rule is quite minimal compared to the 4 or 5 pages I had in 1ed. All my house rules stand on 1 page and that page is not even full.

5e has a lot of "issues"(in quotes because they aren't issues for everyone) that the optional rules don't cover. There are a TON of house rules that get brought up in the various "What house rules do you use?" threads that come up from time to time.

 

[Helldritch]

5e has a lot of "issues"(in quotes because they aren't issues for everyone) that the optional rules don't cover. There are a TON of house rules that get brought up in the various "What house rules do you use?" threads that come up from time to time.

The fact that all these house rules are not the same for everyone simply proves my point. How many house rules did you have in 1ed and how many were answering the same problems as the table next to you? In my case, the shared house rules were 5 pages long, and these were at about 12 or so different tables. All these rules were "needed" to have a consistent gaming experience across all tables as many players were going from one table to the others. Some rules (initiative and surprises in cases of duergar and rangers...) were even given pre-tournament simply because there were so many ways to "correct" the problem...

Most house rules in 5ed are for "preferences" and not for "conveniences and necessities" as was the case for 1ed. But don't you dare say anything against 1ed.

 

[Maxperson]

The fact that all these house rules are not the same for everyone simply proves my point. How many house rules did you have in 1ed and how many were answering the same problems as the table next to you? In my case, the shared house rules were 5 pages long, and these were at about 12 or so different tables. All these rules were "needed" to have a consistent gaming experience across all tables as many players were going from one table to the others. Some rules (initiative and surprises in cases of duergar and rangers...) were even given pre-tournament simply because there were so many ways to "correct" the problem...

Most house rules in 5ed are for "preferences" and not for "conveniences and necessities" as was the case for 1ed. But don't you dare say anything against 1ed.

Back in 1e all of us had our own styles and our own house rules. There was some overlap as we all like to roll on crit tables, and none of us like level limits for demihumans, though we kept the demihuman class restrictions. A lot of our rules were unique, though.

 

[Helldritch]

Back in 1e all of us had our own styles and our own house rules. There was some overlap as we all like to roll on crit tables, and none of us like level limits for demihumans, though we kept the demihuman class restrictions. A lot of our rules were unique, though.

Yes, but unlike 5ed, most house rules were to "correct" problems in the edition that almost everyone were agreeing upon. The solutions, however, were almost as varied as there were tables to play with... The Best of Dragons were trying to assess those weaknesses. And 2ed was seen by many as simply a revamp of the rules of 1ed.

 

[Lanefan]

Such a player could always choose to -not- engage with the more intricate mechanics the class offers.

In essence, there is no real need for a "simple" class since any player can just choose to not use the more "complicated levers" of the class, making it simple.

Sounds good in theory. In practice, though, at many tables that player would soon get flayed sideways for playing a sub-optimal character and-or in a sub-optimal way; and then what do you do?

 

[Lanefan]

Back in 1e all of us had our own styles and our own house rules. There was some overlap as we all like to roll on crit tables, and none of us like level limits for demihumans, though we kept the demihuman class restrictions. A lot of our rules were unique, though.

It would be interesting, here or in another thread, to try and determine just how much general across-the-board overlap there was. I suspect there was quite a lot, and we'd find much common ground on:

--- dropping weapon-vs-armour-type rules
--- relaxing or eliminating level limits for demihumans
--- dropping the gender-based stat differences (for Humans for sure, maybe for some demihumans also)
--- dropping weapon-speed rules (and-or overhauling the entire initiative system)
--- addition of crit and-or fumble tables and rules
--- not giving xp for treasure
--- ignoring a lot of what came out in UA.

 

[James Gasik]

Sounds good in theory. In practice, though, at many tables that player would soon get flayed sideways for playing a sub-optimal character and-or in a sub-optimal way; and then what do you do?

If they're going to get flayed for being sub-optimal by jerk players, then they'd get flayed for being a Champion over a better subclass anyways, I would think.

 

[James Gasik]

The fact that all these house rules are not the same for everyone simply proves my point. How many house rules did you have in 1ed and how many were answering the same problems as the table next to you? In my case, the shared house rules were 5 pages long, and these were at about 12 or so different tables. All these rules were "needed" to have a consistent gaming experience across all tables as many players were going from one table to the others. Some rules (initiative and surprises in cases of duergar and rangers...) were even given pre-tournament simply because there were so many ways to "correct" the problem...

Most house rules in 5ed are for "preferences" and not for "conveniences and necessities" as was the case for 1ed. But don't you dare say anything against 1ed.

Worth noting that many groups didn't even understand all the rules of AD&D and so their house rules weren't always so much rulings as misunderstandings!

I was always that nerd who read the rulebooks cover to cover and was constantly being like "oh hey, there's a rule for that!". I thought I was being helpful, but I had more than one DM pull me aside over the years and say "we don't play it that way".

Worse was when people would argue with me and say "no such rule exists and I would know because I've been playing for X years". Then I'd show them the text and they'd throw a fit.

Like the time I was playing with a 2e group who thought you got multiple attacks with both weapons if you dual wielded...as if two weapon fighting wasn't already busted in 2e!

I showed them the rule, they looked at it, and continued to play with their hasted double scimitar of speed characters with 6 attacks per round while hasted (they were all Elves* of course, so who misses a few years of life when you can live for centuries?).

*a certain subrace that foolishly was granted the ability to have 19 Strength and Dexterity by a certain Book of Elves, no less...

 

[Helldritch]

It would be interesting, here or in another thread, to try and determine just how much general across-the-board overlap there was. I suspect there was quite a lot, and we'd find much common ground on:

You might be surprised...

--- dropping weapon-vs-armour-type rules

Kept as they were by the correction in the Dragon Magazine.

--- relaxing or eliminating level limits for demihumans

We enhanced them by two as if the demihumans were single classed. Nothing more. One thing of note, for dwarves we interchanged limitation for fighter and thieves...

--- dropping the gender-based stat differences (for Humans for sure, maybe for some demihumans also)

Done that immediately. One of my group was entirely girls and they would have shredded me apart for not doing so. And I agreed with them wholeheartedly.

--- dropping weapon-speed rules (and-or overhauling the entire initiative system)

This one was modified too. But weapon speed were not modified. Only the initiative itself as it was quite hard to understand...

--- addition of crit and-or fumble tables and rules

Done that and dropped it. Crit and fumble tables hurted more the players than the foes.

--- not giving xp for treasure

Never dropped that one.

--- ignoring a lot of what came out in UA.

We did that too. Especially the character creation method that derailed the game sooooo much by making paladins both a common class and a way too strong class by making it a subclass of the cavalier...

 

[Willie the Duck]

Like the time I was playing with a 2e group who thought you got multiple attacks with both weapons if you dual wielded...as if two weapon fighting wasn't already busted in 2e!
I showed them the rule, they looked at it, and continued to play with their hasted double scimitar of speed characters with 6 attacks per round while hasted (they were all Elves* of course, so who misses a few years of life when you can live for centuries?).
*a certain subrace that foolishly was granted the ability to have 19 Strength and Dexterity by a certain Book of Elves, no less...

If it was 2e, when they were hasted, they aged a year and thus had to make a system shock roll or die.

 

[Helldritch]

Worth noting that many groups didn't even understand all the rules of AD&D and so their house rules weren't always so much rulings as misunderstandings!

I was always that nerd who read the rulebooks cover to cover and was constantly being like "oh hey, there's a rule for that!". I thought I was being helpful, but I had more than one DM pull me aside over the years and say "we don't play it that way".

Worse was when people would argue with me and say "no such rule exists and I would know because I've been playing for X years". Then I'd show them the text and they'd throw a fit.

Like the time I was playing with a 2e group who thought you got multiple attacks with both weapons if you dual wielded...as if two weapon fighting wasn't already busted in 2e!

I showed them the rule, they looked at it, and continued to play with their hasted double scimitar of speed characters with 6 attacks per round while hasted (they were all Elves* of course, so who misses a few years of life when you can live for centuries?).

*a certain subrace that foolishly was granted the ability to have 19 Strength and Dexterity by a certain Book of Elves, no less...

Ho boy do I know the feeling.
One popular DM was barely able to read english and made it so that feign death could be cast on unwilling targets...
When I showed them the translation, they accused me of being dishonnest and went to an english teacher that confirmed what I had said. Needless to say that some of his players were mad at me as a feign death was even more powerful than power word stun... No one reads the DMG, but a lot misread the rules descriptions in the PHB as well...

 

[Lanefan]

If they're going to get flayed for being sub-optimal by jerk players, then they'd get flayed for being a Champion over a better subclass anyways, I would think.

I'm not so sure about this.

I think the reaction would tend to be quite different to the following two situations:

--- a player playing a sub-optimal class (here, the Champion) but trying to make the best of it; or
--- a player playing any class in an intentionally sub-optimal manner in order to simplify it.

The latter is what was suggested by someone upthread. I don't think it's a viable solution in the wild.

 

[Lanefan]

If it was 2e, when they were hasted, they aged a year and thus had to make a system shock roll or die.

I fixed Haste by making the aging effect work the same for everyone i.e. the target ages what would be the equivalent of a Human year in that species' lifespan. This means Elves (in my game anyway) age about 8-12 years depending on sub-race while a Part-Orc might only age 8 months or so.

I dropped the SSS roll requirement, though.

 

[James Gasik]

If it was 2e, when they were hasted, they aged a year and thus had to make a system shock roll or die.

You know, I didn't even ask about that. Bet if I did, I'd have gotten a "we don't play it that way" response.

 

[James Gasik]

I fixed Haste by making the aging effect work the same for everyone i.e. the target ages what would be the equivalent of a Human year in that species' lifespan. This means Elves (in my game anyway) age about 8-12 years depending on sub-race while a Part-Orc might only age 8 months or so.

I dropped the SSS roll requirement, though.

This is probably the fairest ruling, which of course, would reset the balance quo and make nobody cast haste- no sane person would risk it!

 

[James Gasik]

I'm not so sure about this.

I think the reaction would tend to be quite different to the following two situations:

--- a player playing a sub-optimal class (here, the Champion) but trying to make the best of it; or
--- a player playing any class in an intentionally sub-optimal manner in order to simplify it.

The latter is what was suggested by someone upthread. I don't think it's a viable solution in the wild.

I don't know, I've run into some jerks over the years. "OMG, why are you playing X race with X class, don't you know Y race and Y class is a superior build?"

Mind you, those jerks don't stick around long, when their "perfectly optimized builds" fail to perform in a real game. I got a chuckle recently at treantmonk's video about darkness and devil's sight- I saw that problem coming a mile away when I first saw the 5e Warlock and people were like "permanent advantage/disadvantage! It's broken!".