Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 9436627" data-attributes="member: 72555">So, Balance is more than one thing in D&D.There is a kind of fine-tuned combat Balance, where a level X character of class A and class B should duel each other and it is a coin flip.  There is the ballpark combat Balance, where a level X character of class A and B both can contribute to the same fights and not feel that one of them is dead weight.Then there is narrative Balance, where a level X character of class A and B both have somewhat similar ability to impact the story being told at the table using their character's abilities, and spotlight Balance, where class A or class B don't end up having the table focusing on them 90% of the time you are playing together.Ballpark combat Balance really matters; but in almost every edition of D&D in-class "optimization" had a large enough impact that between-class Balance wasn't the biggest problem, at least at some levels of play.Narrative and Spotlight Balance has serious issues.  OD&D helped Spotlight balance of spellcasters by having non-slot turns be boring for spellcasters, and spells where compartively simpler to run (often vaguely worded and had expensive side effects, like haste and aging).Older versions of D&D introduced mechanics for non-spellcasters to build fortresses and churches, while wizards where basically restricted to doing research into new spells (and a tower to help do that).  This kept the narrative balance between the classes a bit tighter.3e caused a bunch of problems here with its modularity and clearing of spellcasting downsides.  The ability to build a fortress and lead NPCs remained, but now it was an (optional) feat, which a wizard could grab as much as a fighter could.  The game was designed around assuming you played AD&D 2e characters and then used these new rules; then players didn't play AD&D 2e with them.4e removed too much narrative power from players (mainly aimed at spellcasters), which is a sucky form of "balance": everyone is poor so nobody is poor.5e returned to 3e, but not as bad.  Basically, all of the stuff in AD&D and BECMI for "name level" characters is missing as a rival to the spellcasters level 5+ spells.  (I'm not saying the mechanics in AD&D/BECMI for that was good; but at least it provided mechanical support for narrative control by non-spellcasters).I call that 5e's "back 10 problem".  It also holds in the combat mechanics - the last 10 levels of 5e feel significantly less impressive than the first 5 do for every class except full spellcasters, whose new spells provide some excitement.  Most cool abilities you gain are defensive in nature....So, I'd want classes to:A) Ballpark combat balance.  You contribute to combats your peers find challenging, and vice versa.B) Spotlight balance.  Impact per second of table top time.  Time spent on your turn balance.C) Narrative balance.  Mechanics that let you intract with the narrative of the game beyond "kill stuff".  Many mid/high level spells are examples of such narratives, as are (some) background abilities.  Hallow, Wards, Teleport, Wish, Simulacrum, Clone, Move Earth, Zone of Truth, Wall of Stone, Magnificent Mansion, True Polymorph, etc....(A) is a ballpark request.  Enough competence should be baked into a class so that a level 10 PC isn't massively overshadowed by a different level 10 PC of the same or different class.To me, for (B), this means that insanely complex spells that have a huge impact?  They should be extremely use-restricted (not every combat) and/or require more than 1 "turn" in combat to execute.  Maybe fighters or rogues can do some setup and takedown mechanics over multiple turns as well.  The attention attached to these abilities should be balanced against the impact of the mechanics as well (so, tracking a bunch of do-nothing 'marks' is bad; but if the 'mark' means that the character will get 3x damage next turn on it, that is worth tracking).As for (C), I could see moving back to the OD&D style "stronghold" system somehow.  You could even make it modular; simply have full spellcasters not get points that are used here.Like, non-caster PCs get 1 dominion point at level 1, 2 at level 2, 3 at level 3, etc.  Half-casters might get 2 at level 2, 4 at level 4, 6 at level 6, etc (only on even levels).  Full casters get zilch.And Dominion points can be used to turn hirelings into followers, and followers into vassals, and those vassals can rule your castles or thieves guilds or churches you build or buy or conquer.  Or the followers can be set loose as contacts.Now, the mere mortals have a web of NPCs mechanically loyal to them.  Which can have a huge narrative impact.  That would balance the spellcasters ability to alter reality to a certain extent...</blockquote>

Verification