D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad

[Ahnehnois]

Hmm. That reminds me og a game I play!

Dragon Age?!

 

[Neonchameleon]

I really need to find a nice 4e group, while I don't really think your game experience with it is anomalous, it is still far beyond what I have experienced.

It is slightly anomalous to be honest (although [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s experience is very like mine). Generally in my experience 4e groups go well and to a non-combat flexibility that prior editions of D&D can't match if there's an influential member of the group with experience of any modern indie RPG (Fate being the obvious one - but any effects-based game will do (Pemerton normally cites Heroquest I think)). For such groups, 4e has better tools and more flexibility than previous editions of D&D. On the other hand if the group taught themselves from the books or, worse yet, from Encounters/Keep on the Shadowfell, or even from prior editions of D&D, the flexibility is never actually brought out in the rulebooks although it's all there and the majority of DMs are going to miss how it works.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, on the one hand, anything that you're going to spend more than about 5 minutes of table time doing is something that no one should be sitting out.

But combat doesn't need to be one of those things.

So it's important for balance between the classes to recognize the goal of the design.

In D&D, I think the goal of the design shouldn't be the encounter. It should be the adventure.

Which means that maybe it's OK to have a thief sit out a combat with goblins that only lasts about 3 die rolls anyway. And maybe it's OK to have a fighter who can't do much when there's not goblins around, if the scene is brief. And a wizard who prepares the wrong spells might sit out a fight or two, if the fights are short. And maybe a stun will take you out of the fight for a minute or two. All of that is OK, if the encounter is quick.

The "three pillars" means that we have a good perspective for what an adventure should take to complete. Adventures should require interaction (getting the map from the eccentric trader, earning the trust of the town guard), exploration (sneaking past the sleeping dragon, or doing reconnaissance on the orc fortress), combat (slaying the dragon, fighting the orcs). If, when these challenges crop up, they are mostly quick (one combat round), then you can have folks sitting them out.

Personally, I'm in favor of a "minimal contribution to everything," so that maybe the fighter sucks at talking to the king, but he can do something when there isn't stuff to stab. This lets you do things like run slightly longer scenes -- now that dialogue could last three or five rounds, and the party fighter might not be in her element, but she can contribute a bit, without fear of being too much of a dead weight.

But because balance is overall across the adventure and not just in the encounter, I'm totally cool with encounter-level imbalance. I'd rather it not be binary, but I'd also rather it not be blandly homogenous, where everyone does everything at about the same level of competence across the board.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So, on the one hand, anything that you're going to spend more than about 5 minutes of table time doing is something that no one should be sitting out.

But combat doesn't need to be one of those things.

It might not need to be one of those things, but in D&D combat ought to be one of those things. In D&D (as opposed to e.g. Fate) combat is a matter of life and death - and I'd rather not have one of my characters taken out in something they had to sit out and that took three die rolls. In Leverage if you threaten my Mastermind he's probably going to just let himself get captured (and claim afterwards that it was part of the plan all along; possibly it was) - but this sort of option doesn't apply in D&D. And combat in D&D is hardly rare.

Which means that maybe it's OK to have a thief sit out a combat with goblins that only lasts about 3 die rolls anyway. And maybe it's OK to have a fighter who can't do much when there's not goblins around, if the scene is brief. And a wizard who prepares the wrong spells might sit out a fight or two, if the fights are short. And maybe a stun will take you out of the fight for a minute or two. All of that is OK, if the encounter is quick.

And if all fights were against goblins and lasted three rounds I'd agree. But if the thief has to sit out a fight against three goblins they certainly have to sit out a fight against a dragon. And fights against dragons are only quick if the adventurers end up as a messy smear or they flee rather than engaging. So yes, there is no theoretical problem with the thief sitting out the shortest fights (even my 4e wizards have done that). But a thief isn't like a wizard; they aren't keeping their powder dry for the big fights. In the big fights a thief is less useful than in the small ones.

 

[n00bdragon]

So, on the one hand, anything that you're going to spend more than about 5 minutes of table time doing is something that no one should be sitting out.

But combat doesn't need to be one of those things.

So it's important for balance between the classes to recognize the goal of the design.

In D&D, I think the goal of the design shouldn't be the encounter. It should be the adventure.

Which means that maybe it's OK to have a thief sit out a combat with goblins that only lasts about 3 die rolls anyway. And maybe it's OK to have a fighter who can't do much when there's not goblins around, if the scene is brief. And a wizard who prepares the wrong spells might sit out a fight or two, if the fights are short. And maybe a stun will take you out of the fight for a minute or two. All of that is OK, if the encounter is quick.

You point out that all these things are okay... as long as whatever it is doesn't last too long. The problem with this assumption is that many of those scenes will generally take longer than five minutes of table time. Missing out on a fight with a couple of goblins that takes three rolls isn't much. You're correct there. But what about missing out on the fight with the goblin king? Sure it's okay for the fighter to not be doing much in a scene where you talk to some merchants on the road, but what about when you must convince the thieves guild to side with you against the big bad?

Perhaps the key isn't divvying up who is allowed to do what and leaving everyone else with nothing but rather scaling how often certain things can be used. So allow the talky party member to be talky all the time, but perhaps the anti-social ranger has restrictions on his talky abilities so they can only be used some of the time (the idea being that he will save them for the big stuff he doesn't want to miss). Same with combat. Allow some characters to be always good in combat, then allow everyone to be good in combat for a little while at least.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So, on the one hand, anything that you're going to spend more than about 5 minutes of table time doing is something that no one should be sitting out.

I don't understand that strict an approach to it. For one thing, it essentially mandates that you don't split the party. But for another, it's not how most group activities work. In any team sport, people spend time on the bench. In theater, people wait backstage while others are performing. I don't understand why in D&D it's supposedly not OK that some people simply sit out for a while for various reasons. To me, it's perfectly natural that there may be some parts of the game that some players are effectively "benched" for.

 

[n00bdragon]

I don't understand that strict an approach to it. For one thing, it essentially mandates that you don't split the party. But for another, it's not how most group activities work. In any team sport, people spend time on the bench. In theater, people wait backstage while others are performing. I don't understand why in D&D it's supposedly not OK that some people simply sit out for a while for various reasons. To me, it's perfectly natural that there may be some parts of the game that some players are effectively "benched" for.

Because those activities are about producing a best possible result for third parties. Plays aren't written so that actors can have fun. They're written to be entertaining for the audience. The point of D&D is to be entertaining to the players and sitting on the sidelines twiddling your thumbs because the DM has chosen yet another scene which you cannot contribute to is generally not fun.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Because those activities are about producing a best possible result for third parties. Plays aren't written so that actors can have fun. They're written to be entertaining for the audience. The point of D&D is to be entertaining to the players and sitting on the sidelines twiddling your thumbs because the DM has chosen yet another scene which you cannot contribute to is generally not fun.

Well, plays aren't, but sports are. The quarterback of the football team doesn't complain about not being able to play defense. It's not his thing. Likewise, your noncombatant D&D character (rogue scout, bard socialite, pacifist cleric, support mage, etc. etc.) doesn't need to complain about being left out of the fighting part. Nor, for that matter, does the low-Cha character get to participate in negotiations much, and so on. D&D characters are specialized.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I don't understand that strict an approach to it. For one thing, it essentially mandates that you don't split the party. But for another, it's not how most group activities work. In any team sport, people spend time on the bench. In theater, people wait backstage while others are performing. I don't understand why in D&D it's supposedly not OK that some people simply sit out for a while for various reasons. To me, it's perfectly natural that there may be some parts of the game that some players are effectively "benched" for.

Exactly!

I also want to expand on this by saying you should know where your characters main focus is before you start the game. If you have created a character who is less about combat and more about social interaction then why would you be expecting to always kick ass in combat? You know that your main area is going to be social interaction. Sure you friend the fighter is going to be shining in combat but you will have your turn when it comes to the out of combat stuff and vice versa.

I also don't want to see encounter limits. I want to be able to have as many encounters as are appropriate to the story going on or the PC's actions.

 

[The Human Target]

Well, plays aren't, but sports are. The quarterback of the football team doesn't complain about not being able to play defense. It's not his thing. Likewise, your noncombatant D&D character (rogue scout, bard socialite, pacifist cleric, support mage, etc. etc.) doesn't neged to complain about being left out of the fighting part. Nor, for that matter, does the low-Cha character get to participate in negotiations much, and so on. D&D characters are specialized.

Sports at the level you are talking about aren't designed for the fun of the participants.

Nor is offense equal to combat and defense equal to noncombat.