D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad

[Blackbrrd]

For me, balance isn't that important, but games with no balance isn't something I want to play. I was just about fine with 3e's wizard/cleric/druid, although they were a bit too powerful. Could easily have been fixed by boosting the fighter/rogue/ranger/monk a bit. Making the fighter a bit less of one-schtick guy and making the rogue a bit less reliant on sneak attack would be enough. I really enjoyed the flexibility of the wizard with loads of weird spells. If there is something I would have liked, it would have been to make him a bit less top-heavy and slightly less boring for the first few levels.

I am wandering a lot off-topic here, my point really being that 3e wasn't far of from perfect as far as d&d goes. Tweaks is what it needed. I haven't tried 5e yet, but to me, it really looks to have the feel of 3e, but with less complexity and more thought put into making the game easier to run.

Which brings me to what I think is most important: The game should be easy to run, while retaining the right "feel". 3e is easy to run at level 1-7, ok at level 8-11 and gets increasingly bad at level 12+. 4e is really easy to run, especially after I started using the optional rule with inherent bonuses (so I don't have to find magic items the whole time). But, it lost some of the feel of earlier editions when they made the classes feel more similar than in earlier editions.

Now, I really hope 5e will be an easy game to run, all the way up to around level 20, retaining the feel of the earlier editions and is balanced in such a way that all players feel their character has a niche where they are #1 in most situations..

 

[pemerton]

It's interesting from my POV that the whole concept of "balance" was never an issue pre 3e.

Never an issue for whom? It was a recurring topic of conversation in Dragon magazine in the mid-80s through to the early 90s (I pick on these only because this is the era of Dragon I'm most familiar with).

I do not really care about any class being better than another, DPM or any other thing the charge of the brigades of balance seem to trumpet.

What is your measure for a class being "better" than another?

I assume that your OP is meant as a criticism of 4e as well as Next. Classes in 4e do not have equal "DPM". For instance, the wizard/invoker in my 4e game has attacks that do, on average, around 20 hp damage. The sorcerer in the same game has attacks that do, on average, 50+ hp damage. That's a fairly marked difference.

 

[Minigiant]

There is truth to this. Balance as a concept needs to be considered for any game. Some games can be more playable than others without very much of it.

The key is picking the time of balance that matches your audience.

For example, D&D balanced itself via various things.

Earlier editions used "balance over the campaign" for some of it's balance. Fighters were better at low levels and became stronger in a steady fashion. Magic users were weak at lower levels but gain their strength at later levels. This is fine if your fans all run long multilevel campaigns from level 1 to level X but does not appeal to anyyone else.

D&D also used "balance via race" as well if racial level limits on classes and class restrictions on the more powerful races. Humans did nothing special back thing. Their strength was the ability to be anything at any level. This runs into the benefits and issues of "campaign balance" but also removes customization, for good or ill.

Early D&D also used "balance via class probability" where some of the stronger classes had ability requirements just to pick them. This made them harder to get and less likely to see any problems. Bust customization.

Multiple editions used "spotlight balance over the adventure". Everyone could attempt almost anything via DM adjudication but certain characters were so much better for dealing with some problems. Some were better or more efficient in combat. Others were better at climbing and hiding. etc. Agai it works great but it mostly puts the onus on DMs and adventure designers to maintain it (and the game designers to have system mastery to design the game for it to work).

The there is the type that Zardnaar spoke about which is "encounter balance over the adventure" where you let every PC shine in every scene by giving them equal strength and resources and emphasizing something else. 4e cranked up this and used "balance via role availability" to make PC feel different.

There were other balance methods that were loved and hated.
"Balance via magic item availability"
"Balance via wealth"
"Balance via spell risk"
"Balance via the meatgrinder" (dead men can't break games)

And there are many more methods D&D has not tried.

The key is figuring out which one your base likes, doing it well, explaining it to the DM, hiding it in play, then... selling all that to fans.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's really simple... if you don't want to play a balanced game... build your PC so that he isn't very good.

It's really quite easy. You don't need the system to do it for you, you can take all manner of poor choices to create an "unbalanced" PC. Then you can play it to your heart's content. But how many of you actually do this? Doesn't seem like that many of you.

I think the desire to play an "unbalanced" game or PC only goes so far.

 

[n00bdragon]

I don't remember anyone ever crabbing about games being "too balanced" until 4e came along. It just seems more like a knee-jerk "I hate 4e and 4e is balanced therefore I must justify to myself and others why balance is terrible."

 

[Lwaxy]

It's really simple... if you don't want to play a balanced game... build your PC so that he isn't very good.

It's really quite easy. You don't need the system to do it for you, you can take all manner of poor choices to create an "unbalanced" PC. Then you can play it to your heart's content. But how many of you actually do this? Doesn't seem like that many of you.

You can't really "unbalance" one PC. A party, yes, but one single PC?

An "unbalanced" party done by design happened often enough in the games I played. Just like the Fellowship of the Ring which was about the most unbalanced party ever setting out for adventure It all depends on the group and what you are aiming to create with the game.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Never an issue for whom? It was a recurring topic of conversation in Dragon magazine in the mid-80s through to the early 90s (I pick on these only because this is the era of Dragon I'm most familiar with).

I have to second this. I've seen a lot of debates about balance (both about D&D and other RPGs) years before 3e was even announced. Overpowered RIFTS classes, abusive tricks with Celerity in V:tM, complaints about the Unearthed Arcana classes, the list goes on. I'm pretty sure the term "Monty Haul GM" goes back as far as AD&D1e.

I know that Herobizkit said that this was from his point of view but I think that perhaps he simply wasn't looking in the right places at the time. Or the wrong places, if you will.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't remember anyone ever crabbing about games being "too balanced" until 4e came along. It just seems more like a knee-jerk "I hate 4e and 4e is balanced therefore I must justify to myself and others why balance is terrible."

Really? As far as I'm concerned, an obsession with trying to make every class useful in combat was a big problem with 3e. Sure, the supposed steps towards "balance" in 4e were step in the wrong direction, but as in most cases, everything that's wrong with 4e came from 3e.

I also don't remember anyone complaining about games not being balanced enough until 4e came along.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You can't really "unbalance" one PC. A party, yes, but one single PC?

Sure you can. It's possible (not the norm, but possible) to only have one PC. But regardless of the number of PCs, one certainly consider the balance of one PC against other things than his compatriots.

For example, a character that could cast Cure Light Wounds at will probably wouldn't change the dynamics of one party much; CLW availability is not usually an important limit. However, the world-breaking implications of a character wandering through the streets healing everyone's wounds or crossing back and forth on a battlefield regenerating an army are quite significant.

Another example, if you have a party of PCs that the DM decides are god-blooded and gives some huge benefit like +10 to all ability scores, they're not all balanced, they're all equally unbalanced.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Do we need two (inevitably) angry edition-warring threads on the same topic? Spawned after another thread on essentially the same topic got locked?

It's only edition warring when you turn it into that.