D&D - Just Fair Enough, Arguments Ensue

[CaptainSarathai]

Does anyone else get the feeling that Wizards walked right up the middle line between almost every possible camp of D&D player, and now we're paying for it with constant forum arguments?

They finally balanced the game so well, that stuff that is slightly off balance becomes glaringly obvious. Stuff like Blade Pact, or Champion - both of which seem to have a tendency to cause fights when someone tries to "fix" them.
On the one hand you have the old players from 3.5 and earlier shouting,
"That's not broken - I had to deal with Pun-Pun!"
and
"Sub-optimal? Do you know what it was like to play a Martial class in my day?"
While in the other corner you have people arguing,
"Why should a Paladin need S13, when he can alsp get AC21 from Dex16 and a Feat? Why is it 'okay' for 1 subclass to continue being obviously worse than the other choices?"

D&D has finally made it just easy enough to do anything in the game. Bounded Acchracy might mean that you don't really need a 20 in your stat, but that extra +1 means something, so some people figure,
"If +1 isn't a big deal, why fight over it? Just give it to me"
And others say,
"If it's not a big deal, why fight over it? Just live without it."

It feels like D&D wanted to become an open, permissive game that allowed players to do anything. That was part of the streamlining - you can build a Dex Fighter without having to wait for them to release "Class #281: Dex Fighter" in one of several dozen Splatbooks. But part of "what makes D&D the game it is" was that there have always been racial restriction, there have always been certain playstyles, and class stereotypes, and breaking those down causes people to say, "not my D&D"
People unanimously decided that they liked not having the -X attachments to race, and when Volo's brought them back, they were angry because it brought back a rule that had long handicapped players. But why do we stick to the race mods at all, or Str requirements for Paladins, or permit some classes to remain imbalanced even by a small margin?

[Gastronomie]

Well, to be fair, I don't know a single game edition in the world which has attracted absolutely no critisism. Such thing cannot possibly exist, because everyone has different opinions.

I'm fine with most of the stuff 5e presents me. If people think it isn't fair, they shouldn't discuss in these forums, they should discuss with the friends they actually play with.

[Regitnui]

Generally, because the alternative is wildly unbalanced or doesn't feel like D&D anymore. And honestly, people who don't like D&D usually gravitate to a system that is more what they want. We like 5e because it's the most balanced form of D&D. There's little cheese, no dominating class/race/feats (like 4e), and it still has the classic D&D feel (like 3.5). It's also much simpler and the power creep is kept to a minimum.

[CaptainSarathai]

Well, to be fair, I don't know a single game edition in the world which has attracted absolutely no critisism. Such thing cannot possibly exist, because everyone has different opinions.
That, I definitely agree with. It's the fight I used to have when I played Warhammer Fantasy - the game cannot possibly be 100% balanced, but any developer should be expected to do the best they can.


Generally, because the alternative is wildly unbalanced or doesn't feel like D&D anymore. And honestly, people who don't like D&D usually gravitate to a system that is more what they want. We like 5e because it's the most balanced form of D&D. There's little cheese, no dominating class/race/feats (like 4e), and it still has the classic D&D feel (like 3.5). It's also much simpler and the power creep is kept to a minimum.
Yep. Don't get me wrong - I love 5e. I also loved 4e, and i can't really stand 3.5/PF these days.
I just think that we've ended up split in two camps - people who love 5e just the way it is and understand that the balance won't ever be perfect and that some things exist because "that's just how D&D has always been," and then the people who understand that the balance won't quite be perfect but still want to press closer to that goal and don't really care if 5e is like older editions.

[djreynolds]

When you played 1E, you had to roll well to play a paladin, and roll even better when paladin became part of the cavalier class. Otherwise you played a ranger, or barbarian, but if all you could scrap together was a 9 in strength you could still play a fighter.

But at least as a fighter... you needed somewhat less experience to advance in level and you had no restrictions. But it was fair, you rolled the dice, chance is fair.

Now to play a paladin or barbarian now, you really have no restrictions, no ability or alignment, nothing. Everyone gets martial weapon proficiency almost.

I mean a barbarian should have no armor proficiency, how does a guy running around in the woods his whole life ever seen a great sword or metal armor, they have hand crossbows on the steppes.

So what is the fighter getting, a paladin can dump charisma and still smite. A paladin can be downright evil.

The fighter class has no identity, its too generic. A champion is not honed to deadly perfection

A fighter can have a high wisdom or intelligence or charisma and have a good saving throw or skill check... but nothing else.

A lot of love and detail went into creating the paladin and barbarian, the only complaint is you need a measly 13 in strength and/or charisma

I remember running over to the store to read the new SCAG.... and I felt like Ralphie from "A Christmas Story,".... I was expecting a Kensai... and we got a Purple Dragon Knight... really... expertise in persuasion... I can give a good pep talk, no inspiration or temporary hit points.

People complain about how powerful GWM and SS are, its literally all the fighter has going for him are these feats.

I almost feel a fighter should at least need less experience to go to the next level... I feel a level 2 fighter instead selecting an archetype... I should just choose paladin or barbarian and even now the new ranger. It needs to be re-written. Otherwise, just make the other martial classes archetypes of the fighter and turn their archetypes into paths.

I have written many threads defending the fighter, I have allowed players to change things up, but my players do not like it. The ability to multiclass easily isn't a strength. None of them can see playing 20 levels as a fighter.

Of all the classes, you and I could become a fighter. That's reason why people want to play the fighter class, just a man or woman with a shield and sword. And that is literally all you get.

[Armored Walrus]

To be honest, half of internet users are only online to argue about something, so no matter what WotC did with this edition, there were going to be a lot of arguments on these forums. The fact that people are arguing over 5e only proves one thing - that they are people.

[Pex]

5E is not Absolutely Perfect In Every Way How Dare You Criticize It. Everyone has their favorite system. Pathfinder is mine while 4E is worth less than used toilet paper. The reverse is true for someone else. People have their own opinions, aesthetics, and tastes. It's good conversation for everyone to talk about them, but how dare anyone admonish people for having those differences.

[Blue Lantern]

Yep. Don't get me wrong - I love 5e. I also loved 4e, and i can't really stand 3.5/PF these days.
I just think that we've ended up split in two camps - people who love 5e just the way it is and understand that the balance won't ever be perfect and that some things exist because "that's just how D&D has always been," and then the people who understand that the balance won't quite be perfect but still want to press closer to that goal and don't really care if 5e is like older editions.

You know those two sides existed as well in the 3.5E days, or even before.

[Regitnui]

5E is not Absolutely Perfect In Every Way How Dare You Criticize It. Everyone has their favorite system. Pathfinder is mine while 4E is worth less than used toilet paper. The reverse is true for someone else. People have their own opinions, aesthetics, and tastes. It's good conversation for everyone to talk about them, but how dare anyone admonish people for having those differences.

As an example, the best thing IMHO about 3.5 was the lore. The mechanics are clunky and unwieldy, weighted down by excessive amounts of numbers. Every game that can trace it's ancestry to 3.0 or its OGL has the same problem to a greater or lesser degree. 5e and FATE take a better angle by being more focused on the doing of cool things instead of the mechanics of doing the cool thing. Though a lot of people have the opposite opinion to mine.

[Sneak Dog]

Interesting you consider 5e so balanced/fair.

Having played it myself, I feel like magic far outshines any martial character.
In combat.
Level 5, one fireball hitting three enemies deals 28 damage on failed save, 14 on succeeded per target. Say 45% chance to fail a save.
(28*0.45 + 14*0.55) * 3 = 60.9
A barbarian, level 5, extra attack and raging, with a 50% chance to hit becoming 75% by having advantage. 18 strength, 2d6 greatsword.
7 damage from weapon. 4 from strength. 2 from rage. 14 total.
14 * 2 * 0.75 = 21 damage per round.

The barbarian spends one of his rages and three standard actions to do what a wizard does in one standard action with a only slightly less frequently accessible resource.

Out of combat.
Barring certain spells like fireball, combat seems actually pretty balanced to me. It's out of combat where I get real problems. For there, all characters have their ability scores and skills to rely upon. However, spell casters also get utility spells. Spells that, unlike ability/skill checks, aren't part of the 'bounded accuracy' philosophy.

What do casters give up for this? Nothing. They still have all the tools (ability scores/skills) that non-casters do, as strong as they do, but they also have spells.

Regardless, there will always be arguments. D&D is popular and people have different ideas of when a thing is balanced. So there will be arguments regardless of how balanced an edition is.

[Addaran]

Interesting you consider 5e so balanced/fair.

Having played it myself, I feel like magic far outshines any martial character.
In combat.
Level 5, one fireball hitting three enemies deals 28 damage on failed save, 14 on succeeded per target. Say 45% chance to fail a save.
(28*0.45 + 14*0.55) * 3 = 60.9
A barbarian, level 5, extra attack and raging, with a 50% chance to hit becoming 75% by having advantage. 18 strength, 2d6 greatsword.
7 damage from weapon. 4 from strength. 2 from rage. 14 total.
14 * 2 * 0.75 = 21 damage per round.

The barbarian spends one of his rages and three standard actions to do what a wizard does in one standard action with a only slightly less frequently accessible resource.

Out of combat.
Barring certain spells like fireball, combat seems actually pretty balanced to me. It's out of combat where I get real problems. For there, all characters have their ability scores and skills to rely upon. However, spell casters also get utility spells. Spells that, unlike ability/skill checks, aren't part of the 'bounded accuracy' philosophy.

What do casters give up for this? Nothing. They still have all the tools (ability scores/skills) that non-casters do, as strong as they do, but they also have spells.

Regardless, there will always be arguments. D&D is popular and people have different ideas of when a thing is balanced. So there will be arguments regardless of how balanced an edition is.

Mostly, i think it's because people come from older editions. For DnD, the difference between casters and mundane was way worst. Being 10% less effective seems balanced/fair when you used to be 50% less effective.

[Nifft]

Does anyone else get the feeling that Wizards walked right up the middle line between almost every possible camp of D&D player, and now we're paying for it with constant forum arguments?

Can you prove that it's possible for any universe to exist without constant forum arguments?

- - -

To put it another way: what would a game about being creative look like, if it were built such that there were no possible creative differences?

[Sneak Dog]

Mostly, i think it's because people come from older editions. For DnD, the difference between casters and mundane was way worst. Being 10% less effective seems balanced/fair when you used to be 50% less effective.

Interesting criticism. Applies entirely to the combat argument. As for the non-combat part, I'm just left wondering. Hmm. Can you express that in percentages?

Even then, I'm the sort of person that'll just be unhappy with it being unbalanced until it's actually balanced in the proper way:
With the comparable parts balanced to a point where the incomparable pieces muddle it all up and make it hard to tell which one is better, while still having all options that are supposed to be viable feeling statisfying to play, even after extensive play.
And for roleplaying games specifically, for this to be true both in and out of combat, for a campaign will be spending a lot of time with both and everyone should be able to be effective in both situations.

No barbarian that can only fight for me, no. If a wizard can cast fly on himself, breaking the laws of gravity, to cross the bottomless pit, a barbarian should be able to throw his clerical friend over. It is only reasonable that if these laws of physics can be broken by the mere intellect of the wizard, that they can be battered by the grand strength of the barbarian, bent by the finesse of the fighter or persuaded by the glibness of the rogue.

Now I can imagine a lot of people will disagree with this being the 'proper way', but that's subjective. That's fine. It's only what I currently view as the proper way and I'll probably change it many a time during my life (I hope so at least). Given this way though, 5e is rather flawed.

I want my roleplaying systems to be better, so I discuss. I try to learn from what it does well and what it does worse. I try to learn the reasons other people have for their points of view, whether I agree with their resulting views or not.
Truely, if a thing is not up for discussion, then it is probably a bad thing. For discussion is a great manner to reach greater understanding, eventually leading to improvement of the thing.

[Zalabim]

Having played it myself, I feel like magic far outshines any martial character.
In combat.
Level 5, one fireball hitting three enemies deals 28 damage on failed save, 14 on succeeded per target. Say 45% chance to fail a save.
(28*0.45 + 14*0.55) * 3 = 60.9
A barbarian, level 5, extra attack and raging, with a 50% chance to hit becoming 75% by having advantage. 18 strength, 2d6 greatsword.
7 damage from weapon. 4 from strength. 2 from rage. 14 total.
14 * 2 * 0.75 = 21 damage per round.

The barbarian spends one of his rages and three standard actions to do what a wizard does in one standard action with a only slightly less frequently accessible resource.
The Dexterity to save 55% of the time against the fireball is +5, or having magic resistance, while the AC to hit only 50% of the time for the barbarian is 18. If you pit them against a similar defensive number, the barbarian is dealing ~25.935 damage per round and the fireball ~20.3 damage per target. When the barbarian is out of their 3 minute-long rages, they still deal 22.425 per round. When the wizard is out of their 2 fireballs they deal considerably less damage in a considerably smaller area. Just a 2nd level Burning Hands is half the damage, so 10.15 per target.


Barring certain spells like fireball, combat seems actually pretty balanced to me. It's out of combat where I get real problems. For there, all characters have their ability scores and skills to rely upon. However, spell casters also get utility spells. Spells that, unlike ability/skill checks, aren't part of the 'bounded accuracy' philosophy.

What do casters give up for this? Nothing. They still have all the tools (ability scores/skills) that non-casters do, as strong as they do, but they also have spells.
The first explanation here is that a PC's ability scores/skills do a lot more in 5E than they did in 3.x. You no longer have to use your highest attribute, maximum skill point investment, racial skill bonus, and magic item boosters in order to succeed with a skill. Characters are going to have relatively more skill proficiency than they used to and enjoy more success with non-proficient checks on top of that.

The second part of this is that spell slots and spells known are a limited resource. Any spell you learn and cast for out-of-combat effects is a spell you don't get to have in combat. That level 5 barbarian doesn't have the option to spend half or more of their combat effectiveness out of combat instead, nor the worry about failing at combat if they did. That level 5 barbarian who spends their rage moving heavy furniture does twice as much damage for the rest of the day compared to the level 5 wizard who spent their spell slots flying across a bottomless pit.

The last part is that the spells themselves aren't as strong as they used to be, so the gap is narrowed from that end as well. This all leads to the martial/caster comparison being much more balanced in 5E than it was in 3.x, even if you can't describe it in numbers.

[pwykersotz]

This thread - Just Fair Enough, Arguments Ensue

:smalltongue:

[Tanarii]

Nope. This is a smaller forum, but I still see the various discussions regarding 5e as far less argumenetative than the WoTC forums used to be during 3e era.

And don't even get me started on the stupidity that 3.5 unleashed. (Much of it mine, to my shame.)

[djreynolds]

For starters I'm sorry about previous rant and crying.

DMing is tough, it takes time to prepare and give all your players a chance to shine.

But because of this forum, I have really expanded and improved my DMing, so thanks

Its good to see points of views, different from your own.

And obviously, some of our negative views did reach the designers... we got a new ranger and it is vastly improved, especially beast master is better than the previous incarnation.

I really like 5E, and my players do. It is fun.

[Sneak Dog]

The Dexterity to save 55% of the time against the fireball is +5, or having magic resistance, while the AC to hit only 50% of the time for the barbarian is 18. If you pit them against a similar defensive number, the barbarian is dealing ~25.935 damage per round and the fireball ~20.3 damage per target. When the barbarian is out of their 3 minute-long rages, they still deal 22.425 per round. When the wizard is out of their 2 fireballs they deal considerably less damage in a considerably smaller area. Just a 2nd level Burning Hands is half the damage, so 10.15 per target.

3 fireballs due to arcane recovery, an equal amount to barbarian rages. Rages can end prematurely by clever enemies until the barbarian is level 15 (hold person, ignore barbarian one round), at which point either your allies 'help' you or you lose your rage.

Everyone should have AC, for it is the main way a non-caster will damage you. Not everyone can be good at all saves, there's three main saves and you get to pick one or two to be good at. I just picked equal to-hit chances, lowered it by 5% for the caster due to an equal on the die now being a failure, and decided not to go too deep into the 'wizard can target a weak defence' strategy. Even with your circumstances, a barbarian has to put in a lot of time/effort to come out equal to a fireball.

Though maybe I have the math a bit wrong, maybe a fight lasts long enough for it to equal out. 5e is quite balanced in combat.


The first explanation here is that a PC's ability scores/skills do a lot more in 5E than they did in 3.x. You no longer have to use your highest attribute, maximum skill point investment, racial skill bonus, and magic item boosters in order to succeed with a skill. Characters are going to have relatively more skill proficiency than they used to and enjoy more success with non-proficient checks on top of that.

Everyone has that. However, skills have been included in bounded accuracy. A level 18 barbarian with 20 strength has issues breaking DC20 manacles. He can jump 20ft. reliably, but needs a check past that. He can lift 300 lbs. Drag 600lbs. Double that if you're one of them totem barbarians that really wanted to double it.

Meanwhile, the wizard has been dining in Mordekainen's Magnificent Mansion for a while.


The second part of this is that spell slots and spells known are a limited resource. Any spell you learn and cast for out-of-combat effects is a spell you don't get to have in combat. That level 5 barbarian doesn't have the option to spend half or more of their combat effectiveness out of combat instead, nor the worry about failing at combat if they did. That level 5 barbarian who spends their rage moving heavy furniture does twice as much damage for the rest of the day compared to the level 5 wizard who spent their spell slots flying across a bottomless pit.

The last part is that the spells themselves aren't as strong as they used to be, so the gap is narrowed from that end as well. This all leads to the martial/caster comparison being much more balanced in 5E than it was in 3.x, even if you can't describe it in numbers.

Out of combat, a caster can do all a non-caster can do. Their skills/attributes are none weaker than those of a fighter or barbarian.

On top of that, there's a chance the caster has just the right spell for the occasion and can trivialize the encounter by expending a resource.
(Barbarians can't actually rage to move furniture until level 15. Their rage would just end, as they are not making attack rolls nor taking damage. Even then, enhance ability gives the non-combat benefits of rage, for cheaper and longer, at the cost of concentration.)

Why skills were chosen to be part of bounded accuracy just baffles me honestly. For spells still teleport you around the world, fly you over any pit, resurrect you from any death, shift you to different planes, as they always have.


This thread - Just Fair Enough, Arguments Ensue

:smalltongue:

Would you have it any other way? :smallsmile:

[Regitnui]

5e's fair enough to tell us all what RPG fans and homebrewers consider unbalanced; when the game isn't weighted in their favour. :smallbiggrin:

[Joe the Rat]

No, it's not special to 5e. You just see more coverage.
Go hang out at Dragonsfoot and watch an internet-enabled "discussion" of the early editions.

[CaptainSarathai]

To put it another way: what would a game about being creative look like, if it were built such that there were no possible creative differences?
FATE?
There is still plenty of room for creative differences in D&D. Players can still choose between classes, races with interesting racial abilities, and can distribute their Ability Scores however they like.

But there are things about 5e (mostly hearkening back to older editions) which put strange limits on creativity. Things like the requirement of a minimum ability score to MultiClass. Like, you can build a Wizard with Intelligence 8, but you can't stop being a Wizard because your intelligence is too low?

Then there are the subclasses which are that 10% more or less effective than the others. And while optimization isn't the soul of any game, nobody should be forced to make their character less effective just to play a particular niche. Especially a niche that is provided by the game design.
It's one thing to want to MultiClass a Barbarian and Wizard. That's going to be weak, but it was your choice. It's completely different to decide to play a Ranger (pre-UA) and be handicapped right out of the gates. To what degree people find this "acceptable" is a cause of friction, like we see whenever someone brings up Champions or BladeLocks.

Frequently, whenever those things are brought up, it seems to devolve into one portion of the group saying, "shut up and deal with it" or complaining that people are just whining that they can't "optimize" or "powergame." And my original post is the only way I can fathom those people without just thinking that they're being scummy. I have to think that they are saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" because they don't think D&D is broken - it's supposed to have those odd barriers to creativity as part of what makes it unique.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I have to think that they are saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" because they don't think D&D is broken - it's supposed to have those odd barriers to creativity as part of what makes it unique.

Or it's because they don't think mechanical barriers and trade-offs that define and characterize the game are barriers and trade-offs of creativity.

Better way to express that: For anyone who thinks a measure of creativity in role-playing is freedom to have things be and happen the way you want them, D&D is absolutely the wrong game to play in the first place.

[Sigreid]

You get three types of people in forums:

1. People looking straight up for information.
2. People interested in debating the finer points of policy and theory.
3. People who just like to argue.

Doesn't matter the topic, you're going to get all 3.

[Tanarii]

You get three types of people in forums:

1. People looking straight up for information.
2. People interested in debating the finer points of policy and theory.
3. People who just like to argue.

Doesn't matter the topic, you're going to get all 3.
Sometimes all 3 in one person. (I'm personally a strong mix of 2 & 3.)

[Pex]

You get three types of people in forums:

1. People looking straight up for information.
2. People interested in debating the finer points of policy and theory.
3. People who just like to argue.

Doesn't matter the topic, you're going to get all 3.

If I started the thread, I'm in for 1.
If I respond in a thread, I'm in for 2.
If people insult me in their disagreement to my opinion, I've moved on to in for 3.
:smallbiggrin:

[Vogonjeltz]

You get three types of people in forums:

1. People looking straight up for information.
2. People interested in debating the finer points of policy and theory.
3. People who just like to argue.

Doesn't matter the topic, you're going to get all 3.

In deference to thoughtfulness, I would also include 4. those who express opinions as fact and 5. those who are self aware of the limits of available knowledge.

[Sigreid]

In deference to thoughtfulness, I would also include 4. those who express opinions as fact and 5. those who are self aware of the limits of available knowledge.

I just group those into 2. You're welcome to have them separate.

[2D8HP]

You get three types of people in forums:

1. People looking straight up for information.
2. People interested in debating the finer points of policy and theory.
3. People who just like to argue.In going over my own posts to this Forum, I'd say they mostly fall into these categories:

1) Inquires: "How does this rule work?",
"What's a good novel?".

2) Rants: "Bah! All these new rules are too complex dagnabbit!".

3) Praise: "These easy new rules are AWESOME!", "That novel was BADASS!".

4): Contrition: "Sorry I about ragging on the rules".

5) Gratitude: "Thanks for explaining the rules to me".

6) Lessons: "Don't preview when you use the dice roller function".

7) Support: "The dice roller was hard for me to learn too. Don't be down on yourself.

8) Jokes: "In notRussia Dungeon Explores YOU!"

9) Bloviating: "As Gygax wrote in 1976....", "In Chaucer's the Canterbury Tales" (these seem to be the posts that other playgrounders actually like. Hooray for me!)

and

10) Random pop culture references from the 1970's and 80's: "A shrubbery". "Khaaaaaan!"

I think that's most of them.

As to the thread topic:

5e D&D is needlessly and frustratingly complex with all its player options up until the time that I can actually manage to remember them, after which point the options become awesome.

Your welcome.