What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Imaro]

Day balance is 5e wizard spells -- a pc gets so many, refreshed daily. This is not encounter balanced because that oc can burn them all in one encounter and have none left for future encounters.

Encounter balance creators effects that are limited in use to the encounter. 5e warlocks are more encounter balanced - they have resources that mostly refresh pin a per encounter basis and were limited to only a few uses per encounter.

These things can coexist, but the recurring discussions on encounter/adventuring day pacing that balances short rest vs long rest recoveries shows that mixing the two has issues that result from different pressures on play. 1 encounter pet day is as balanced as 8 for the warlock (with short rests), but not fir the wizard.

This is exactly the point that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] is making: the different incentives and pressures on the game between encounter balancing and day balancing are often at odds.

I don't know... it would seem if one has the number of recharges of encounter abilities per adventuring day it would be trivially easy to move everything to a daily balancing paradigm if homogeneity is desired.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't know... it would seem if one has the number of recharges of encounter abilities per adventuring day it would be trivially easy to move everything to a daily balancing paradigm if homogeneity is desired.

I'm assuming you mean abilities that have limited in encounter usages that would then recharge daily rather than by encounter. You could, but then you'd be placing a strong incentive on daily encounter design to only have that many encounters a day, which would then pretty much be encounter balanced despite the daily recharge.

 

[Ovinomancer]

They have to appeal to the widest possible base. The problem with a highly specialized system that caters to thing X, when it is going to be played at a table of 5 people who probably all have varying tastes, is it becomes very niche. 4E was an effective niche product, but a lot of people left the game when it came out. I don't play 5E, but it is pretty obvious they've managed to get a lot of people back in, broaden the base a bit, etc by taking a more compromised approach. It isn't going to satisfy people at the extreme ends of preferences. But it is the kind of approach that is called for in a mainstream product.

Huh? Where were either me or [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] taking about popularity? I don't follow the context of your post -- it's not addressing any argument I made that I can tell.

 

[Imaro]

I'm assuming you mean abilities that have limited in encounter usages that would then recharge daily rather than by encounter. You could, but then you'd be placing a strong incentive on daily encounter design to only have that many encounters a day, which would then pretty much be encounter balanced despite the daily recharge.

I would assume even daily encounter design has a limit which should be unaffected by the change. I also would think, though it might be a bit harder, one could also reverse engineer daily abilities to have a recharge rate based around an encounter paradigm... though honestly I haven't given it nearly as much thought.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would assume even daily encounter design has a limit which should be unaffected by the change. I also would think, though it might be a bit harder, one could also reverse engineer daily abilities to have a recharge rate based around an encounter paradigm... though honestly I haven't given it nearly as much thought.

There are entire long threads on this very thing -- rebalancing 5e in one direction or the other. The vast amount of contention is which way to balance, alongside a decent bit of "if the DM just does lots of work to force balance, it works fine as is."

I'm not arguing for one side or the other, I'm just pointing out that there's a conflict between to two designs. I see it in my 5e game and try to do the work. That works for us, but it's not a general solution.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Huh? Where were either me or [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] taking about popularity? I don't follow the context of your post -- it's not addressing any argument I made that I can tell.

I am just pointing out what happened before when they went hard in a one direction. These online discussions tend to lose sight of the need for a game like this to appeal to people who might have conflicting tastes and be gaming at the same table.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am just pointing out what happened before when they went hard in a one direction. These online discussions tend to lose sight of the need for a game like this to appeal to people who might have conflicting tastes and be gaming at the same table.

Lol. 2e and 3e are hard day balanced. 4e's problem wasn't going hard in a direction, it was the sudden shift from.previous editions and betting unclear about it. I'd say early 4e was fairly schizophrenic when talking about its balance, frankly. But this isn't about going in hard in one way or the other -- it's trying the middle that causes issues, add seen in 5e with daily encounter balance being a hard to hit target because of the different balance mechanics.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Lol. 2e and 3e are hard day balanced.....

I'd say 2E was more balanced over the course of the campaign.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'd say early 4e was fairly schizophrenic when talking about its balance, frankly. But this isn't about going in hard in one way or the other -- it's trying the middle that causes issues, add seen in 5e with daily encounter balance being a hard to hit target because of the different balance mechanics.

This is why I brought up popularity. I think the proof is in pudding here. In my view 4E did go very hard in the direction of balance by encounter. And I think that pretty obviously drove away a lot of fans. Now they seem to be trying a middle approach all around. Not just in terms of daily balance versus encounter balance; but a much more moderate approach to balance in general (just look at Mearls comment on Fireball). I'd say this is a much healthier approach for long term. You are guys are arguing for moving hard in the direction of one particular preference. But the problem is D&D is not a single serve game. You are making a meal for lots of people and they tend to have mixed preferences.

The reason this made 4E a problem at my table when it came out, was we could only every get about 1/4th of the group enthused about it. Now that 1/4th was very enthused. But the rest just rwere not. And this was at a table that isn't afraid to play all kinds of games.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'd say 2E was more balanced over the course of the campaign.

What on earth are you taking about now? Abilities in 2e are on a daily reset.

Look, this isn't a value statement. It's an observation about how ability balance affects play and how. Encounter balance incentivizes more immediate play focus, stressing "in the moment" play vs strategic play. This is because you get your full suite (or most of it) at the start of every encounter/scene and so dying have to conserve or worry about the next encounter. 4e shows this play effect.

Daily balance means abilities recharge on the day, not the encounter. This incentivizes more strategic play, where immediate expenditure is balanced both against current events and possible footie events. 2e/3e show this in play, or break with "5 minute workday" issues.

Neither is better or worse, but they have opposing incentives and that should be recognized. 5e mixes balances with different classes using different balance points, and this shows in the continued discussions on the best way to balance encounters a day when classes from reach balance point are present. It's not much of an issue if you happen to have the same balances in the party.

That's it. Love whichever you want; I've liked them all.