D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad

[I'm A Banana]

Thats not true, or at least a very outdated model of how skill challenges work. Skill challenges became more and more nuanced as 4e progressed. Just because your fighter is able to convince the DM to let you use "endurance" to intimidate the Dragon doesnt mean you can gain a success in the skill challenge.

I imagine that lots of DMs and clever Internet People and article writers and new books have solved this problem in a more rigorous way for their own purposes by declaring something "not quite worth an actual success" since 2008.

But one of these two things must be true:

1. The Skill Challenge mechanic allows any character to contribute to any challenge thanks to empowering the DM to use any skill to count as a success if the player makes a good case. This risks making characters fairly homogenous, but always gives any character something they can do.
2. The Skill Challenge mechanic rewards characters who are skilled in a certain area by enabling them to contribute more to the success of a given challenge. This risks having characters endure sucking for long periods of real-world time, but keeps the distinction between character strengths and weaknesses as something valuable.

Those things might be both be true of skill challenges under different DMs who have looked at different articles at different times since 2008, but they are mutually exclusive within one given skill challenge. Either (1) is the case, or (2) is.

IMXP with 4e, because it's generally more fun to be a tough badass who endures draconic heat than it is to describe that and have it do nothing, (1) is often the case. And with other posters, I've been arguing that the downside of (2) can be mitigated by a design approach in which firstly, encounter contribution is not binary, and secondarily, encounter length is generally on the order of 5-10 minutes of play time.

To which the general response I've been hearing is "just don't play with people who want to play other kinds of fantasy heroes than you want, and everyone's gonna love (1). That homogeneity is a strength, because it makes sure everyone gets to be heroic and no one has to suck."

Which strikes me as odd because no D&D group I've ever played with has ever met that criteria, and the posters espousing it seem to be under the impression that this is a prerequisite for harmonious gameplay. I'm used to players who model their PC's on characters with clear strengths and clear weaknesses, who get as much fun from struggling with their weaknesses as exploring their strengths, who don't mind if someone else takes the lead in an encounter they think their character shouldn't contribute that much to (as long as they don't have to sit out too long).

 

[Incenjucar]

I imagine that lots of DMs and clever Internet People and article writers and new books have solved this problem in a more rigorous way for their own purposes by declaring something "not quite worth an actual success" since 2008.

But one of these two things must be true:

1. The Skill Challenge mechanic allows any character to contribute to any challenge thanks to empowering the DM to use any skill to count as a success if the player makes a good case. This risks making characters fairly homogenous, but always gives any character something they can do.
2. The Skill Challenge mechanic rewards characters who are skilled in a certain area by enabling them to contribute more to the success of a given challenge. This risks having characters endure sucking for long periods of real-world time, but keeps the distinction between character strengths and weaknesses as something valuable.

Those things might be both be true of skill challenges under different DMs who have looked at different articles at different times since 2008, but they are mutually exclusive within one given skill challenge. Either (1) is the case, or (2) is.

IMXP with 4e, because it's generally more fun to be a tough badass who endures draconic heat than it is to describe that and have it do nothing, (1) is often the case. And with other posters, I've been arguing that the downside of (2) can be mitigated by a design approach in which firstly, encounter contribution is not binary, and secondarily, encounter length is generally on the order of 5-10 minutes of play time.

To which the general response I've been hearing is "just don't play with people who want to play other kinds of fantasy heroes than you want, and everyone's gonna love (1). That homogeneity is a strength, because it makes sure everyone gets to be heroic and no one has to suck."

Which strikes me as odd because no D&D group I've ever played with has ever met that criteria, and the posters espousing it seem to be under the impression that this is a prerequisite for harmonious gameplay. I'm used to players who model their PC's on characters with clear strengths and clear weaknesses, who get as much fun from struggling with their weaknesses as exploring their strengths, who don't mind if someone else takes the lead in an encounter they think their character shouldn't contribute that much to (as long as they don't have to sit out too long).

Challenges can also be overcome through cooperation. The character with Intimidate may use the character with Endurance as a prop "Look how tough my friend is!" The character with Perception may need the help of the character with Athletics to get to a high enough location to see anything. 4E is very big on working around the "everyone get in line and take your discrete turn irrespective of your teammates" play style. It's a game of cooperation. By the design of it, in 4E everyone generally contributes, even if one player is the star in a particular challenge. It's also worth keeping in mind that DCs for types of challenges can vary quite a bit, meaning that you may have more success using a weaker skill than a higher one, just as using a radiant dagger against undead is better than using a necrotic great axe (similarly, a martial character may have a hard time intimidating a wraith, while a fire sorcerer may have a hard time intimidating a red dragon).

 

[Marshall]

I imagine that lots of DMs and clever Internet People and article writers and new books have solved this problem in a more rigorous way for their own purposes by declaring something "not quite worth an actual success" since 2008.

But one of these two things must be true:

1. The Skill Challenge mechanic allows any character to contribute to any challenge thanks to empowering the DM to use any skill to count as a success if the player makes a good case. This risks making characters fairly homogenous, but always gives any character something they can do.
2. The Skill Challenge mechanic rewards characters who are skilled in a certain area by enabling them to contribute more to the success of a given challenge. This risks having characters endure sucking for long periods of real-world time, but keeps the distinction between character strengths and weaknesses as something valuable.

Those things might be both be true of skill challenges under different DMs who have looked at different articles at different times since 2008, but they are mutually exclusive within one given skill challenge. Either (1) is the case, or (2) is.

Why?!? The DM can always add skills available to the skill challenge(chance are he designed it to start with) and characters that naturally fall into the primary skills are going to be better(and characters with abilities specific to skill challenges will be even better).

Where do you get the idea that having abilities that make you good in skill challenges means you suck out of them? Or that not having special abilities for skill challenges, means you cant contribute at all?

Again, you're stuck in this binary mode of thinking that being able to contribute at all means that you are as competent as the best candidate for the job with the only other option being worthless.

IMXP with 4e, because it's generally more fun to be a tough badass who endures draconic heat than it is to describe that and have it do nothing, (1) is often the case. And with other posters, I've been arguing that the downside of (2) can be mitigated by a design approach in which firstly, encounter contribution is not binary, and secondarily, encounter length is generally on the order of 5-10 minutes of play time.

So, basically, you want it the way 4e does it? In that there is no binary built into any class. They are all at least somewhat competent in all aspects of the game.

5-10 minute encounters is just absurd. You cant do anything in that little time. It takes more than 5 minutes for the DM to set a scene properly and describe the environs to the players. I dont know who you're playing with, but most people I know like to strategize with the other players/PCs, discuss options and decide what to do and where to do it and thats out of combat...

I cant even contemplate a game where I could run 24+ meaningful encounters in a 4 hr session.

To which the general response I've been hearing is "just don't play with people who want to play other kinds of fantasy heroes than you want, and everyone's gonna love (1). That homogeneity is a strength, because it makes sure everyone gets to be heroic and no one has to suck."

Back in high school, a couple of buddies and I decided to play Car Wars. Two of us sat down and started building cars and the 3rd said "I'll be the Ref." I thought that was strange, but hey, I'll play along. After we had our cars done, the Ref set up a highway and placed some debris and wrecked cars on it and placed my friends and I cars on one end of the map. He then told us that there were people milling about the wreck site. My friend and I promptly started attacking each other and mowing down the crowd.

Which person in this story is playing the wrong game?

Which strikes me as odd because no D&D group I've ever played with has ever met that criteria, and the posters espousing it seem to be under the impression that this is a prerequisite for harmonious gameplay. I'm used to players who model their PC's on characters with clear strengths and clear weaknesses, who get as much fun from struggling with their weaknesses as exploring their strengths, who don't mind if someone else takes the lead in an encounter they think their character shouldn't contribute that much to (as long as they don't have to sit out too long).

....and theres a huge difference between sharing the spotlight and heading to the kitchen to make a snack because you are a detriment to the team in these conditions. All my players will let someone else take the lead as long as they get to fall in line behind. What shouldnt happen is a system that makes the game into a series of encounters where only one player participates at a time.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I imagine that lots of DMs and clever Internet People and article writers and new books have solved this problem in a more rigorous way for their own purposes by declaring something "not quite worth an actual success" since 2008.

But one of these two things must be true:

1. The Skill Challenge mechanic allows any character to contribute to any challenge thanks to empowering the DM to use any skill to count as a success if the player makes a good case. This risks making characters fairly homogenous, but always gives any character something they can do.
2. The Skill Challenge mechanic rewards characters who are skilled in a certain area by enabling them to contribute more to the success of a given challenge. This risks having characters endure sucking for long periods of real-world time, but keeps the distinction between character strengths and weaknesses as something valuable.

Or your supposed dichotomy is based on a mix of the fallacy of the excluded middle and not actually examining the details of the game design, and is instead making hypothetical assertions based on an abstract game when the actual design of 4e has seen the risk and has taken enough steps to avoid that risk.

First, it is screamingly obvious when you look at the game rules that a bard is going to be able to contribute more to social interaction skill challenges than a fighter will. This is because:

1. The Bard has more skills than the fighter (5 vs 3)
2. The Bard has social skills that stack with their charisma. Fighters normally dump charisma - this can be argued against if you allow the fighter to use Athletics to do odd things in skill challenges
3. The Bard has Words of Friendship for a +5 to one roll
4. The Bard has Bardic Ritualist which can easily give them further bonusses in social situations.

So it is quite clearly evident that in social situations under the rules as written the Bard will contribute more than the fighter. (1) simply is not true. We can discard it as irrelevant.

However the downsides of 2 you point out are things the designers of 4e both noticed and did something about. Meaning that "Run the risk of" means "Is a theoretical possibility but not one that should be relevant to both games".

So. How did 4e handle the problems you point out when you use the approach that skills and fiction both mean something. Let's list some of the methods used, most of them subtle.

1. General competence and three pillars of game design
2. Bounded Accuracy, actually implemented
3. Flexible classes

General competence and flexible skills

In 4e every character is assumed to be generally competent and actually learn things as they level up. They also have enough skills to be able to put at least one skill into each of the non-combat pillars. Even the single least skilled class in 4e (the fighter) can have at least one interaction skill (and has two on their skill list; intimidate and streetwise) and can have at least one exploration skill (and has a few like athletics and endurance on their skill list). So there is literally no reason that there is anyone with no relevant skills in any pillar, except through personal choice. Further than that, if someone screws up and finds that they are incompetent somewhere and it's making them sit out more than they want to there are very easy retraining rules in 4e - and you can get a skill you want either by retraining a skill, or through buying a feat, or through buying a multiclass feat.

Bounded Accuracy, actually implemented

Unlike any of the D&D Next playtest packets, 4e actually has and uses bounded accuracy. It just hides it under the +1/2 level rule. Why do I claim Next doesn't actually use bounded accuracy in the playtest packets? Because, to put it simply, Next only has bounded accuracy on the supply side. The PCs have bounded accuracy - but the target numbers for the skill checks are unbound. Which means that it's almost impossible for a thief-acrobat in any D&D Next playtest packet to walk a tightrope reliably.

So. When I say skill challenges have bounded accuracy, why do I think this, and what do I mean?

In 4e skill training gives you +5 to a skill. Interesting number that +5; it's very close to the difference in skill bonusses between a primary stat and one of your low stats and remains that way as you level. (It's not spot on, but is near enough to jam with). This means that in practice there are three tiers to 4e skill levels.

• Mediocre. Low stat, untrained in the skill. Despite this, rolling a mediocre skill you have a decent chance to succeed on an easy skill check
• Good. Someone who is good at a given skill is either trained or talented, but not both. Either it's the bard trying to intimidate someone despite being untrained, or the fighter trying to intimidate someone despite not really understanding people when they don't have a blade in their hands.
• Expert. An expert both has a high basic stat and training in the relevant skill. And possibly more. These are the people who can do the almost impossible.

So how good do you need to be to constructively help in a skill challenge? The answer is simple. Most DCs in skill challenges (any version) are Average. Which means that to help constructively in a skill challenge you only need to be good.

And why do I think WotC deliberately did this? Simple. Because they told us they did.

So 4e has actually implemented bounded accuracy, which means that in order to contribute to a skill challenge effectively you just need to have a relevant trained skill. Combine this with the fact that all classes in 4e can get training in skills for any pillar (point 1) and you have no reason to sit out level appropriate skill challenges.

Flexible Classes

4e classes are very, very flexible. What the class represents is quite simply your approach to combat - what you do when the rubber meets the road rather than what your day job is.. Wizards are battle mages who reach for spells before anything else. I've played a wizard using the Beserker class. (Seriously, he was great. An expert ritual caster who wore wizard's robes and carried a very pointy staff. The staff just happened to be a greatspear and when people tried to assassinate him they got some very nasty shocks. But his day job was a wizard, complete with pentagrams, candle wax, and all the party's ritual casting needs).

That classes are so flexible means that you can fit most concepts very easily.

Combine the three points, and especially the first two, and the downside you claim to point 2 isn't a serious issue because a lot of design work has gone into ensuring that the numbers in 4e actually work and that the theoretical problem you point out isn't a practical problem.

To which the general response I've been hearing is "just don't play with people who want to play other kinds of fantasy heroes than you want, and everyone's gonna love (1). That homogeneity is a strength, because it makes sure everyone gets to be heroic and no one has to suck."

And here you are misrepresenting everyone disagreeing with you. In D&D as it was right from the word go and has been in literally every edition combat is the pillar in which the spotlight is shared. What you are hearing is "Do not play D&D with people who reject the fundamental conceits of D&D and instead try to steal the spotlight from everyone else at once in the pillar of D&D that indicates that the spotlight is shared." Sam is a spotlight hog the way you have described him. If he were just inept at combat and hid under rocks while the other three people did their thing that wouldn't be a problem. But by his desire to killsteal while contributing next to nothing to the kills themselves except in so far as everyone else goes out of their way to give him something to do he is playing against the wishes of the other three and making their game less fun.

You might have three pillars of game design - but that doesn't mean that you have three identical pillars.

I'm used to players who model their PC's on characters with clear strengths and clear weaknesses, who get as much fun from struggling with their weaknesses as exploring their strengths, who don't mind if someone else takes the lead in an encounter they think their character shouldn't contribute that much to (as long as they don't have to sit out too long).

But you haven't done that here with your conception of Samwise. He's like a caricature straight out of the 90s "I'm not going to Roll-play and to prove I'm not going to roll-play I'm going to make a character who is deliberately weak. But because I'm the roleplayer here, unlike you roll-players, this game must be about Me! Mememememe! And I must have the spotlight in the combats despite the fact I'm no good at them."

If Sam wanted to not contribute in the combats except for running, hiding, and helping that would be one thing. But you haven't set that up. You've set Sam up as played by a selfish jerk. One who always must get the limelight for his competence rather than let it come to them because they are in danger due to their weakness. If Sam genuinely wants to play a character he thinks shouldn't contribute in combat that much then he can. But the price of that is not contributing in combat that much. Rather than having Sam be the person who finally deals with the dragon.

I was not kidding in the slightest when I compared the way you described Samwise to a Kender or a Fishmalk in terms of table disruption. Sam isn't a character who is weak at combat. He's a character who is weak at combat and demands the combats must revolve round him. He's a spotlight hog.

And I say that as someone who commonly plays the Scrappy Kid in Feng Shui. But then as the Scrappy Kid I actually am contributing in combat even as I try to stay alive and away from martial artists who should be able to beat my character to a pulp, or away from people with guns trying to shoot him.

 

[Sunseeker]

Tell it to Loki. If you are a decently creative illusionist, what kills people isn't the illusions. It's the truth they don't see. Combat with an illusionist in an open field should leave the guy the illusionist was fighting swinging at air and the illusionist appearing behind them and plunging a dagger into their kidneys.

This applies only to illusionists who are monomaniac enough to rely entirely on their spells. Rather than carry a dagger as well. Of course D&D has historically been terrible at handling such illusions and shell games. But that isn't a problem with the illusionist so much as the implementation.

Then we run into a problem where a single person can do everything, and that's bad for group games. This is why "balance" is important. A character like this illusionist who can avoid damage, control their foes, and kill them, isn't balanced. There's no room for another party member here, much less a whole adventuring group.

"Balance" in games like D&D isn't about making everyone good at everything, it's about making things fit together. The fighter has the defenses the cleric lacks. The ranger has the senses the fighter lacks. The wizard has the damage the ranger lacks. With this sort of setup we end up with a group whose strengths compensate for each others weaknesses. Characters who can do everything aren't conductive to good gaming. So balance looks for ways not just to make players good at things, but to make them good at working with each other.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Then we run into a problem where a single person can do everything, and that's bad for group games. This is why "balance" is important. A character like this illusionist who can avoid damage, control their foes, and kill them, isn't balanced. There's no room for another party member here, much less a whole adventuring group.

"Balance" in games like D&D isn't about making everyone good at everything, it's about making things fit together. The fighter has the defenses the cleric lacks. The ranger has the senses the fighter lacks. The wizard has the damage the ranger lacks. With this sort of setup we end up with a group whose strengths compensate for each others weaknesses. Characters who can do everything aren't conductive to good gaming. So balance looks for ways not just to make players good at things, but to make them good at working with each other.

That depends. The illusionist in question might be able to kill at a pinch - but can't do it fast. Rather than giving themselves the opportunity to hide behind the veil of illusion and sneak attack, they'd be far more efficient if they concentrated on the illusions and had the rogue and fighter sneak attacking. What's real just needs to be something underneath the illusion, and letting the illusionist concentrate on the illusions (that they are good at) and multiplying the fighter's combat ability works a whole lot better than multiplying the illusionist's meager combat ability.

They also do need to be a whole lot less powerful.

 

[Guest 85555]

Then we run into a problem where a single person can do everything, and that's bad for group games. This is why "balance" is important. A character like this illusionist who can avoid damage, control their foes, and kill them, isn't balanced. There's no room for another party member here, much less a whole adventuring group.

"Balance" in games like D&D isn't about making everyone good at everything, it's about making things fit together. The fighter has the defenses the cleric lacks. The ranger has the senses the fighter lacks. The wizard has the damage the ranger lacks. With this sort of setup we end up with a group whose strengths compensate for each others weaknesses. Characters who can do everything aren't conductive to good gaming. So balance looks for ways not just to make players good at things, but to make them good at working with each other.

When characters are all perfectly balanced for combat (high hp guy, good defense guy, good striking one foe guy, good managing large number of foes guy, etc) I get wicked bored.

 

[Mistwell]

When characters are all perfectly balanced for combat ...

Let me know when someone is arguing for perfectly balanced combat. Or perfectly balanced anything. Or perfect anything.

 

[Guest 85555]

Let me know when someone is arguing for perfectly balanced combat. Or perfectly balanced anything. Or perfect anything.

i was responding to shidaku's post about everyone having an area in combat that is their's. Perhaps I misunderstood his point. It seems like a totally valid design approach to me but I just find that kind of balance bored me (simply personal preference).

 

[Sunseeker]

When characters are all perfectly balanced for combat (high hp guy, good defense guy, good striking one foe guy, good managing large number of foes guy, etc) I get wicked bored.

As soon as that is actually what I said, you're welcome to be bored with it.