Rhetorical question

[DanyBallon]

Why every socalled "fix" are to bring weaker features on par with the most powerful abilities?

Doing so only move the bell curve forward and since the better is now average, new "better" options will appear and ask to "fix" again to be on par. This is what lead to powercreep.

Can't people just accept that not all options are equals and that in order to have a decent average, you need to have some options better, and some weaker. As long as both end of the spectrum are not too far from the average, they remain balanced.

I think 5e is doing a great job with their bell curve. The only issue is that some people may find their favorite option on the lower end of the bellcurve.

[gfishfunk]

While rhetorical, I will none the less answer.

I think there are four possible power levels: vastly under powered, not optimal, optimal, and overpowered.

Whenever a feature is either vastly under powered or overpowered, it can warrant a tinker.

[DivisibleByZero]

The problem is that people generally think that the best way to go about things is to "improve" the less powerful options, when in fact the better choice is usually to decrease the effectiveness of the perceived "better" options.

I'll wait here patiently while everyone goes to get their pitchforks and start screaming about how "nerfing" things is bad. But in the mean time I'll simply state that one of those options introduces power creep, while the other safeguards against it.

[Maxilian]

The problem is that people generally think that the best way to go about things is to "improve" the less powerful options, when in fact the better choice is usually to decrease the effectiveness of the perceived "better" options.

I'll wait here patiently while everyone goes to get their pitchforks and start screaming about how "nerfing" things is bad. But in the mean time I'll simply state that one of those options introduces power creep, while the other safeguards against it.

I agree, but nerfing feel bad for those that play the "nerfed" class, while buff (most of the time) just make the buffed class feel better

[Honest Tiefling]

Easier to convince players to 'get' more power onto their sheets then to take it away, I suppose. Also, if the power level of good options is ideal for the game, it makes more sense to bring it up then to lower it.

I agree that some options will always be weaker, but if a concept or beloved play style is hampered, that's an issue. I don't agree with weakening everything to bring it in line, because sometimes the weak option is bad for reasons related to game play, such as not being used often enough, being confusing or needing some ruling or just not flexible enough.

In my opinion, weakening everything across the board is just as dangerous, if not more so, then strengthening everything across the board. You can't just take either approach without considering the needs of your particular game.

[DivisibleByZero]

I agree, but nerfing feel bad for those that play the "nerfed" class, while buff (most of the time) just make the buffed class feel better

It isn't about feelings, it's about game balance.
I'm not speaking about 5e here, I'm just speaking in general. 5e is fantastically balanced for a TTRPG.

[Breashios]

I don't feel "nerfing" is bad, just unnecessary. But in your home game, go ahead and tinker to taste. If the result is preferred by the whole group, well that is just serving a better experience.

[Desamir]

It isn't about feelings, it's about game balance.

You realize the only reason game balance matters at all is feelings, right?

[DivisibleByZero]

You realize the only reason game balance matters at all is feelings, right?

Ummm.... no?
Game balance has nothing to do with feelings and everything to do with creating a cohesive experience.

Do you want to have to alter the encounter tables to suit the power level of the group, or is it just easier if the guidelines set out actually work? From the DMs side of the screen, game balance has nothing to do with feelings. And the DM is the one doing all of the work.

[gfishfunk]

It isn't about feelings, it's about game balance.
I'm not speaking about 5e here, I'm just speaking in general. 5e is fantastically balanced for a TTRPG.

My own tweeks and changes are rarely about balance, and are instead usually about increasing options.

[Maxilian]

It isn't about feelings, it's about game balance.
I'm not speaking about 5e here, I'm just speaking in general. 5e is fantastically balanced for a TTRPG.

I know, but in the end TTRPG are based on feelings (if the players and/or the DM is not enjoying it, there are going to be problem) though i repeat, i agree with you

[Desamir]

Ummm.... no?
Game balance has nothing to do with feelings and everything to do with creating a cohesive experience.

Okay, let's follow this line of thought. Why does it need to be a cohesive experience?

[Steampunkette]

Nerf the powerful things, buff the weak things, find a stable middle.

And no. Not all options are equal, OP. But they should be as close as reasonably possible because that's what gameplay balance is about. A level playing field.

[DivisibleByZero]

Okay, let's follow this line of thought. Why does it need to be a cohesive experience?

I don't have time to answer questions that you should already know the answers to. If you have something to say about it, just say it.

[DanyBallon]

But why not just keep it that way? No nerfing, no buffing. All classes are perfectly viable as is. Even the weaker options are still fun to play.

[gfishfunk]

Balance has a lot to do with feelings, but it also has to do with false choices: if the differences in power and experience provide enough incentive to push nearly every player away a choose-able feature or into a choose-able feature, there is a lack of balance. It's not a real choice at that point, even though it is presented as such.

[DanyBallon]

And no. Not all options are equal, OP. But they should be as close as reasonably possible because that's what gameplay balance is about. A level playing field.

Agreed, but didn't they tried with 4e to be as level as possible, and one of the complains was that everything feel the same?

[DanyBallon]

Balance has a lot to do with feelings, but it also has to do with false choices: if the differences in power and experience provide enough incentive to push nearly every player away a choose-able feature or into a choose-able feature, there is a lack of balance. It's not a real choice at that point, even though it is presented as such.

You're right, but there are really few trap options in 5e.

[Breashios]

My experience indicates different players enjoy different things about roleplaying and the different roles they can take. One player wants to be the "outdoor trailblazer". The other wants to be the "noble warrior". They don't care a lick if their character is optimized, competitive in combat or if the features of another class are overall better than theirs. They just want to know they matter in some way and only ask that they be involved in the story, some requiring less spotlight than others.

[DivisibleByZero]

Agreed, but didn't they tried with 4e to be as level as possible, and one of the complains was that everything feel the same?

Exactly.
4e was the most balanced TTRPG I've ever seen. But in so doing, they created a game where your actual class didn't even matter. A Striker was a striker was a striker. A controller was a controller was a controller. So on and so forth.
You can't have different classes that use different mechanics without some degree of power differential.
You can't remove that power differential without making things feel dull and cookie cutter.
5e has done a great job of keeping classes feeling different, without too much of the power differential issues. I haven't seen many systems do it better, and none which were d20 based.

[Blue Ghost]

Everything in game design should be in the service of fun. Game balance is only important because it makes the game more fun for everyone involved.

Generally speaking, people have more fun when they have more power and options at their disposal. It's not universal, but it's true more often than not. People also tend not to enjoy having power and options taken away from them.

Power creep is a real danger, yes, but raising the power level of weaker options generally does not as a rule contribute to power creep. People gravitate toward the strongest options available as a baseline; bringing up the weaker options to the same level doesn't increase the power level available, only the diversity of options.

I agree, sometimes nerfs are required. Sometimes the strongest options completely overshadow the others, or set the bar so high as to be unsustainable as a baseline, and in those cases it's better to nerf them than to try to bring everything else to that level. But nerfing always involves some element of sacrifice, as it reduces the enjoyment of people who enjoyed the options you're nerfing, and so it should be done sparingly.

[Honest Tiefling]

Agreed, but didn't they tried with 4e to be as level as possible, and one of the complains was that everything feel the same?

Just because you mess up once, doesn't mean you don't try again...Else, why are we here in these forums at all?

Not to mention, plenty of people do enjoy 4e so they must have done something right.

[Breashios]

So balance, while a goal, is not so high. As long as the class options are reasonable and one class doesn't completely step on another classes spotlight (The original ranger was this to some extent with regard to non-favored terrain), most players choices don't (in my experience) have anything to do with which has the strongest feature and more to do with their vision of their character for that campaign.

[Steampunkette]

Agreed, but didn't they tried with 4e to be as level as possible, and one of the complains was that everything feel the same?

The issue with 4e wasn't "All the class features are dealing relatively similar amounts of damage" it was "Class Flavor and Mechanical Differences in Playstyle don't exist in this edition"

You can make a game with close balance without removing all of the interesting mechanical differences between characters.

[DanyBallon]

The issue with 4e wasn't "All the class features are dealing relatively similar amounts of damage" it was "Class Flavor and Mechanical Differences in Playstyle don't exist in this edition"

You can make a game with close balance without removing all of the interesting mechanical differences between characters.

And that's pretty much what 5e is all about. The different options are well within close range from one another. There's a few powerful options (PAM) that would benefit from bien nerfed, while some other would need a buff (Weapon Master anyone?), yet PAM is not litterally overshadowing everything else, nor weapon master being absolutely useless either (it's close though)

[Steampunkette]

And that's pretty much what 5e is all about. The different options are well within close range from one another. There's a few powerful options (PAM) that would benefit from bien nerfed, while some other would need a buff (Weapon Master anyone?), yet PAM is not litterally overshadowing everything else, nor weapon master being absolutely useless either (it's close though)

The Battlemaster does about 200 more damage per adventuring day (on average) than the Champion. That's a difference that needs to be shored up, especially since that 200 damage can be traded out for damage mitigation.

Either by nerfing the Battlemaster or improving the Champion.

Then you've got all the new class options coming out that have some power creep in them. Some of those should get nerfed, but buffing some of the underperforming stuff would also be prudent, since some amount of power creep is, essentially, inevitable.

Eventually we should have a fairly narrow range of "Balanced" classes, bring up the low stuff, bring down the high stuff, and hang out in the middle. As it is, some things are significantly underperforming compared to what is extant.

[Desamir]

I don't have time to answer questions that you should already know the answers to. If you have something to say about it, just say it.

Why does the game have to be balanced? Because the tenets of game design say that a balanced game is more enjoyable on the whole. There is no other reason. Enjoyment is emotional. Game balance exists solely to create positive feelings. I want to be clear on this point, because the idea that "feelings are irrelevant" in game design of all things is totally alien.

Back on topic. 5e is relatively well-balanced, but there are a few options that are weak enough to be unfun--e.g. PHB Beastmaster Ranger and Four Elements Monk. Are the anti-buffing people saying that the rest of the options should be nerfed down to that level?

[DanyBallon]

Why does the game have to be balanced? Because the tenets of game design say that a balanced game is more enjoyable on the whole. There is no other reason. Enjoyment is emotional. Game balance exists solely to create positive feelings. I want to be clear on this point, because the idea that "feelings are irrelevant" in game design of all things is totally alien.

Back on topic. 5e is relatively well-balanced, but there are a few options that are weak enough to be unfun--e.g. PHB Beastmaster Ranger and Four Elements Monk.

Are the anti-buffing people saying that the rest of the options should be nerfed down to that level?

Personnally, I'd say no, but I don't think that Beastmaster and 4-Element monk are unfun to play either.

[Desamir]

Personnally, I'd say no, but I don't think that Beastmaster and 4-Element monk are unfun to play either.

Beastmaster was evidently unpopular enough to warrant a full UA revision.

There's nothing wrong with having a spectrum of power levels. There is something wrong when some options feel so bad to play that nobody plays them.

"Make the worst options more fun to play" is a good solution. "Make every other option feel worse" is not a good solution.

[DivisibleByZero]

The Battlemaster does about 200 more damage per adventuring day (on average) than the Champion.

Patently and verifiably false.

[Steampunkette]

Patently and verifiably false.

I suppose it depends on how one defines "Average Adventuring Day" and relative abilities, but there's been dozens of threads and reddit posts that break down the math to show Battlemasters do significantly more damage than Champions over the course of the day. Unless that day happens to be -particularly- long and allow the Champions standard constant always on crit improvement to make a larger average dent.

[DireSickFish]

I think in general the forums goes overboard with home-brew ideas, fixes, and edits for existing classes. When you ask for advice and specifically mention not wanting to houserule anything you'll still get something they worked up completely by themselves.

It's natural when you get people playing the same game but with vastly different experiences and expectations. I've got a few house rules when I GM. And the other GMs in my group all have their own preferences.

I try to ignore most of it on the forums unless the post is talking specifically bout examining some house rule they have. As those conversations lead to a rabbit hole and drag down entire threads into the mud.

[SaintRidley]

I don't have time to answer questions that you should already know the answers to. If you have something to say about it, just say it.

What constitutes a cohesive experience is completely a matter of feeling.

There. I cut the middle man out for them.

[DivisibleByZero]

What constitutes a cohesive experience is completely a matter of feeling.

There. I cut the middle man out for them.

What constitutes game balance is not a matter of feeling, so we've come full circle on my viewpoint.

[Desamir]

What constitutes game balance is not a matter of feeling, so we've come full circle on my viewpoint.

And again--the only reason game balance matters is feelings.

[DanyBallon]

Beastmaster was evidently unpopular enough to warrant a full UA revision.

There's nothing wrong with having a spectrum of power levels. There is something wrong when some options feel so bad to play that nobody plays them.

"Make the worst options more fun to play" is a good solution. "Make every other option feel worse" is not a good solution.

Beastmaster got a revision because many complained it was too weak without even playing the class. On paper it was looking bad, but it wasn't so in actual play. Now I do prefer the revised ranger, but it wasn't needed at all to begin with.

[Kitten Champion]

If I've learnt anything about game design, balance is less important than having a mutually satisfying experience between the game's participants - that playing feels good for all parties is more significant than some kind of perfectly tweaked mechanical equilibrium - so that even a technically weaker option within a game can still yield personal enjoyment as much or more than a more objectively optimal one.

The "balance" in D&D is more about you feeling you've been given to tools to fulfill the fantasy latent in your hero while having a meaningful impact on the overall game and whether or not everyone else at your table did the same.

[DanyBallon]

If I've learnt anything about game design, balance is less important than having a mutually satisfying experience between the game's participants - that playing feels good for all parties is more significant than some kind of perfectly tweaked mechanical equilibrium - so that even a technically weaker option within a game can still yield personal enjoyment as much or more than a more objectively optimal one.


Can't agree more. With some friend of mine we designed a small card game a few years ago. We tried to get the mechanics as simple and as balanced we could, and manage to pull it out!!! But the game was so dull to play that we burned the rules and every demo :smallbiggrin:

[Steampunkette]

Couldn't agree less.

You have to have SOME KIND of balance for there to be challenge, competition, and satisfaction of success.

Otherwise you're just running around the starter zone of an MMO with your max level character, stomping little wolves.

Unless you're the kind of person that could have all the fun in the world just doing joint storytelling in which case: Cool. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. More power to you.

But if you're gonna talk about mutual satisfaction, recognize that for some of us the rules, and balance, are important to that satisfaction. If you don't need balance to be satisfied, that's fine. But for those of us who do, please stop dismissing our concerns.

[Kitten Champion]

I didn't say it was insignificant, merely less so. You're playing a power fantasy in D&D, not being able to contribute would be detrimental to your enjoyment as would one character overwhelming all aspects of the game through sheer mechanical superiority.

However, not having an ideal position in the game's meta doesn't mean your hero isn't fun to play or can't contribute in its own fashion.

[DanyBallon]

Couldn't agree less.

You have to have SOME KIND of balance for there to be challenge, competition, and satisfaction of success.

Otherwise you're just running around the starter zone of an MMO with your max level character, stomping little wolves.

Unless you're the kind of person that could have all the fun in the world just doing joint storytelling in which case: Cool. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. More power to you.

But if you're gonna talk about mutual satisfaction, recognize that for some of us the rules, and balance, are important to that satisfaction. If you don't need balance to be satisfied, that's fine. But for those of us who do, please stop dismissing our concerns.

We don't ask for no rules, we're saying that fun and mutual satisfaction should come before balance. 5e is a good example. It's not perfectly balanced, but it's fun to play for most. The game was designed to be fun and as much balanced it could be without losing on the fun side. But balance was not a mean to be achieved at all cost.

[Steampunkette]

I didn't say it was insignificant, merely less so. You're playing a power fantasy in D&D, not being able to contribute would be detrimental to your enjoyment as would one character overwhelming all aspects of the game through sheer mechanical superiority.

However, not having an ideal position in the game's meta doesn't mean your hero isn't fun to play or can't contribute in its own fashion.

For some people it actively does mean that it's not fun. They're frustrated or feel less significant and that impacts their enjoyment to the point that the game isn't fun.

No amount of telling them "Just have fun with the way it is" is going to change that. For my part I don't absolutely need perfect balance to enjoy the game. But I know enough people who do that I'm willing to do what I can to try and foster the game that is fun for them, too.

[Desamir]

No amount of telling them "Just have fun with the way it is" is going to change that. For my part I don't absolutely need perfect balance to enjoy the game. But I know enough people who do that I'm willing to do what I can to try and foster the game that is fun for them, too.

How does one objectively measure "perfect balance"? What constitutes power and success when comparing, for example, a Monk and a Barbarian? DPR and TTK only represent one factor, after all.

[Pex]

The issue with 4e wasn't "All the class features are dealing relatively similar amounts of damage" it was "Class Flavor and Mechanical Differences in Playstyle don't exist in this edition"

You can make a game with close balance without removing all of the interesting mechanical differences between characters.

4E:

X[W] damage of type (color) and [(status effect, save to end) or (someone moves)], X = some number, W = weapon die

:smallbiggrin:

X can equal 0, such as for the Wizard sometimes.

[Steampunkette]

We don't ask for no rules, we're saying that fun and mutual satisfaction should come before balance. 5e is a good example. It's not perfectly balanced, but it's fun to play for most. The game was designed to be fun and as much balanced it could be without losing on the fun side. But balance was not a mean to be achieved at all cost.

Clearly, it isn't as balanced as it can be without losing the fun side if there's so many people who want to change things to bring them into balance so that they can have fun, too.

For some people "Fun and Mutual Satisfaction" come FROM balance. Not before it. Not from significant imbalance. And having balance doesn't mean "Everything is the same and there's no differences between characters so what's the point?", either.

[Steampunkette]

How does one measure "perfect balance"? What constitutes power and success when comparing, for example, a Monk and a Barbarian? DPR and TTK only represent one factor, after all.

I'm not even going to entertain your question, here, if you're just going to Sea Lion. I will say this much:

There's no such thing as Perfect Balance and no one is trying to achieve it. That was a rhetorical flourish.

[Desamir]

I'm not even going to entertain your question, here, if you're just going to Sea Lion. I will say this much:

There's no such thing as Perfect Balance and no one is trying to achieve it.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't baselessly accuse me of things, thanks.

I'm asking how one objectively measures game balance in a game like 5e.

[Steampunkette]

I'd appreciate it if you didn't baselessly accuse me of things, thanks.

I'm asking how one objectively measures game balance in a game like 5e.

Mathematically. Averaging various values in both internal, lateral, and oppositional balance. Adjusted, of course, for role and function.

A relative value is set for each entity in an encounter, a relational value between all involved parties based on their position and faction within the encounter is applied. Randomization added in, comparative values taking into account the various functions of the entities is tallied, relative expectations are weighed, and the encounter (and any appropriate values on the part of each entity) are modified according to the intended balance points.

If one entity is far more able to affect the relative values than any other entity that entity's functions and values should be measured and adjusted accordingly. Similarly, if one entity is far less able to affect the relative values than any other entity, that entity's functions and values should be measured and adjusted accordingly.

All adjustments should also include an examination of internal and lateral balance.

[Desamir]

Mathematically. Averaging various values in both internal, lateral, and oppositional balance. Adjusted, of course, for role and function.

A relative value is set for each entity in an encounter, a relational value between all involved parties based on their position and faction within the encounter is applied. Randomization added in, comparative values taking into account the various functions of the entities is tallied, relative expectations are weighed, and the encounter (and any appropriate values on the part of each entity) are modified according to the intended balance points.

If one entity is far more able to affect the relative values than any other entity that entity's functions and values should be measured and adjusted accordingly. Similarly, if one entity is far less able to affect the relative values than any other entity, that entity's functions and values should be measured and adjusted accordingly.

All adjustments should also include an examination of internal and lateral balance.

1. In the history of this game, has anybody actually run this entire model before stating something is underpowered or overpowered?

2. There are infinitely many ways to weight those factors which will yield infinitely many different tier lists. There is no objective concept of balance in a game like 5e, because 5e is a totally different game depending on whose table you're playing at, which adventure you're playing, and what tasks you are trying to accomplish in that adventure.

We can draw conclusions from things like DPR & TTK, and we can attempt to quantify utility, but when it comes down to it, perception and feel matters more.

Example: Beastmaster Ranger is actually fine from a numbers standpoint. It's still possibly the least-liked subclass in the PHB, and one of the few that got a substantial UA revision.

[Breashios]

For some people it actively does mean that it's not fun. They're frustrated or feel less significant and that impacts their enjoyment to the point that the game isn't fun.

No amount of telling them "Just have fun with the way it is" is going to change that. ... I know enough people who do that I'm willing to do what I can to try and foster the game that is fun for them, too.

I've played since the PHB came out and I literally have not been aware of anyone that felt that way in any of the games I have played or run. The games were pretty much by RAW. I'm not saying someone did not feel that way, but they never expressed it in my presence. As far as I can remember all of the DMs offered to allow class changes throughout and nobody ever took them up on the offer. We had several Champions, a Ranger, a Bard, a Paladin and couple of each other class except a Monk or a Warlock (and I never heard the warlock was a weak class).

[Steampunkette]

I've played since the PHB came out and I literally have not been aware of anyone that felt that way in any of the games I have played or run. The games were pretty much by RAW. I'm not saying someone did not feel that way, but they never expressed it in my presence. As far as I can remember all of the DMs offered to allow class changes throughout and nobody ever took them up on the offer. We had several Champions, a Ranger, a Bard, a Paladin and couple of each other class except a Monk or a Warlock (and I never heard the warlock was a weak class).

Cool. I'm glad your group likes the way the game is.

The fact that there's entire pages of forum arguments on how to "Fix" underperforming or Nerf overperforming classes kind of undercuts the idea that those people don't exist, though...


1. In the history of this game, has anybody actually run this entire model before stating something is underpowered or overpowered?

Yes. Repeatedly. Initially by an eyeball pass recognizing potential issues, then by doing ridiculous quantities of math that are spread from hell to breakfast across the internet. How are you asking this question?


2. There are infinitely many ways to weight those factors which will yield infinitely many different tier lists. There is no objective concept of balance in a game like 5e, because 5e is a totally different game depending on whose table you're playing at, which adventure you're playing, and what tasks you are trying to accomplish in that adventure.

Yeah... this is a load of crap, but I'm not going to sit here and unpack it for you.


We can draw conclusions from things like DPR & TTK, and we can attempt to quantify utility, but when it comes down to it, perception and feel matters more.

Clearly it doesn't for everyone, as I've repeatedly said. That it matters more for you is GREAT! You clearly don't need to be a part of the discussion if things like that don't matter one way or the other. If they do matter one way (The negative manner in which your presenting) then there must be a reason increasing some classes abilities or decreasing another one has an impact on your enjoyment. Examine that.


Example: Beastmaster Ranger is actually fine from a numbers standpoint. It's still possibly the least-liked subclass in the PHB, and one of the few that got a substantial UA revision.

It isn't "Fine" from a numbers standpoint. It's bad enough that Mearls looked at it and went "Yeah, we see your point, here's a new version with different abilities and a better relative value. In fact we're going to allow it in Adventurer's League 'cause even though it's not paid for published content it's better balanced than the original."

[Desamir]

Yes. Repeatedly. Initially by an eyeball pass recognizing potential issues, then by doing ridiculous quantities of math that are spread from hell to breakfast across the internet. How are you asking this question?

I'd love to see a link to someone running that entire mess of a model you posted.


Yeah... this is a load of crap, but I'm not going to sit here and unpack it for you.

It's not, but thanks for your opinion, I guess?


Clearly it doesn't for everyone, as I've repeatedly said. That it matters more for you is GREAT! You clearly don't need to be a part of the discussion if things like that don't matter one way or the other. If they do matter one way (The negative manner in which your presenting) then there must be a reason increasing some classes abilities or decreasing another one has an impact on your enjoyment. Examine that.

Nope. Perception and feel matters more to your side, too. The only difference is that you're trying to frame your perception as some kind of objective measurement, as evidenced by that wall of pseudoscience a few posts up.


It isn't "Fine" from a numbers standpoint. It's bad enough that Mearls looked at it and went "Yeah, we see your point, here's a new version with different abilities and a better relative value. In fact we're going to allow it in Adventurer's League 'cause even though it's not paid for published content it's better balanced than the original."

It is fine from a numbers standpoint, and the fact that you disagree shows that your concept of balance is just as subjective as everybody else's.

[DireSickFish]

Beastmaster got a revision because many complained it was too weak without even playing the class. On paper it was looking bad, but it wasn't so in actual play. Now I do prefer the revised ranger, but it wasn't needed at all to begin with.

Beastmaster wasn't bad because it was weak. It was bad because the rules for it were clunky and didn't make much sense. To make sure the action economy didn't get out of hand they had to tie it to your main action. And then stripped the creature of basically any way to act independently. It was weird to play.

In hindsight Beastmaster should have been it's own core class with the base power of the class built into the fact that there's 2 of you.

[MrStabby]

I don't think that "fixing" is always boosting.

There are three types of "fixing" I see.

1) To bring power down
2) To bring power up
3) To make a class more mechanically fun

1 is common for feats like sharpshooter, polearm mastery and greatweapon master. On the other hand Wizards/Bards are probably seen as being the most powerful classes but no one suggests fixing them.

2 bringing power up is relatively rare for feats. There isn't much passion for an under-performing feat like there is passion for a class. Sorcerer and warlock get some of these, as does the champion fighter. Occasionally there will be a complaint about high level cleric spells.

3 is pretty common. A lot of these also include a power boost but the emphasis is on the fun - things like spell points for warlock and extra spells for sorcerer fall into this. Sometimes there will be a rework of hiding or darkness or poisons or whatever from purely a fun perspective.


Very often the boosts are damage based, people comparing the only thing that is simple to compare (well I guess HP as well, but if you do that you might not get the answer you want), at least for the buff/nerf fixes. For the fun ones, changing damage is usually of secondary importance to boosting flexibility or the ability to develop a theme.

[Steampunkette]

I'd love to see a link to someone running that entire mess of a model you posted.

You are literally on the internet, Dude. You're being a flat out Sea Lion, here. You're demanding I provide you with information you already have ready access to and pretending it's a perfectly valid request. Go. Look. Find. Google is your friend.


It's not, but thanks for your opinion, I guess?

You're welcome!


Nope. Perception and feel matters more to your side, too. The only difference is that you're trying to frame your perception as some kind of objective measurement, as evidenced by that wall of pseudoscience a few posts up.

Hey, man. When someone tells you "This is my motivation" telling them "No it isn't! You don't understand what you're thinking as well as -I- understand what you're thinking!" just proves you're kind of a dink. Don't be a dink. You don't know me, don't pretend you know my reasons. ESPECIALLY not when I've already literally told you what they were.

As to the Pseudoscience; it's how I learned to handle balance for MMORPGs both from personal experience and from others in the industry. But hey! You go right on believing that it's pseudoscience rather than the math that makes your WoW character gain or lose DPS based on the expected duration of a combat and relative utility of each class and it's role!


It is fine from a numbers standpoint, and the fact that you disagree shows that your concept of balance is just as subjective as everybody else's.

Math is pretty objective. You can have subjective opinions about it, like what kind of margin of error from the balance point is acceptable, but the numbers will come out as they come out and no amount of hemming or hawing will change them. It's cool that your perspective is that the numbers are fine for -you- to have fun with. If they're not close enough for someone else, then getting them closer won't hurt you, will it?

Will the Champion getting some more DPR make them less fun for you? It'd make them more fun for the people who see the balance as too loose. If improving that person's fun doesn't harm your fun, what's the point of arguing against changing things for other people's enjoyment?

[MrStabby]

As to the Pseudoscience; it's how I learned to handle balance for MMORPGs both from personal experience and from others in the industry. But hey! You go right on believing that it's pseudoscience rather than the math that makes your WoW character gain or lose DPS based on the expected duration of a combat and relative utility of each class and it's role!



I think an MMORPG is not a good example for this. In an MMORPG everyone is in the same world with access to the same adventures. Not totally true, but there is a near universal "kill things till they are dead" approach to problem solving. MMORPGS are pretty one dimensional and that dimension is the ratio of damage per second to HP. On the tabletop balance isn't about who can kill a dragon the quickest, but has to also encapsulate whether expertise in persuasion to get the dragon to release the prisoners is better or worse than an extra 5% on damage. How likely this is to be more fruitful than MOAR DAMAGE will depend on the DM and the setting. How much it adds/detracts from the enjoyment of you and the party will depend on players. Even restricting to the combat pillar - things like shoving over an enemy mean so much more if your table likes to play front-line fighters and if your DM doesn't use monsters many size categories above you.

The maths isn't wrong - it's just being misapplied and the results oversold. It's the conclusions I take issue with.

[Steampunkette]

Skill Checks and Spells can be balanced in the same way. Which is why I noted "Encounter" and "Relative Value" rather than "Battle" and "Hit Points"

The mechanics are the same, the numbers just change.

[MrStabby]

Skill Checks and Spells can be balanced in the same way. Which is why I noted "Encounter" and "Relative Value" rather than "Battle" and "Hit Points"

The mechanics are the same, the numbers just change.

But what weighting do you give each of these? How do you weight skills against damage? How to you weight the ability to avoid a battle against the ability to win a battle?

The scope to avoid a battle or to use a particular skill or any ability will vary between different tables. Some classes will be more effective than others in some campaigns and will be less effective in others.

[Desamir]

You are literally on the internet, Dude. You're being a flat out Sea Lion, here. You're demanding I provide you with information you already have ready access to and pretending it's a perfectly valid request. Go. Look. Find. Google is your friend.

There is no holistic, all-encompassing measure of 5e balance that I'm aware of on the internet. As I said before, DPR is only one factor. Please cut out the condescension, thanks.


Hey, man. When someone tells you "This is my motivation" telling them "No it isn't! You don't understand what you're thinking as well as -I- understand what you're thinking!" just proves you're kind of a dink. Don't be a dink. You don't know me, don't pretend you know my reasons. ESPECIALLY not when I've already literally told you what they were.

Yeah, I'm not the one throwing names around, bud. I don't have to know you personally to call you out when you're trying to pass your concept of game balance as objective fact.


As to the Pseudoscience; it's how I learned to handle balance for MMORPGs both from personal experience and from others in the industry. But hey! You go right on believing that it's pseudoscience rather than the math that makes your WoW character gain or lose DPS based on the expected duration of a combat and relative utility of each class and it's role!

Which has minimal relevance to D&D 5e.


But what weighting do you give each of these? How do you weight skills against damage? How to you weight the ability to avoid a battle against the ability to win a battle?

The scope to avoid a battle or to use a particular skill or any ability will vary between different tables. Some classes will be more effective than others in some campaigns and will be less effective in others.

This is basically what I'm getting at. What is the exchange rate between +1 to skills and 1 point of DPR? What is the quantitative value of being able to run up walls, or disengage as a bonus action?

[Steampunkette]

But what weighting do you give each of these? How do you weight skills against damage? How to you weight the ability to avoid a battle against the ability to win a battle?

The scope to avoid a battle or to use a particular skill or any ability will vary between different tables. Some classes will be more effective than others in some campaigns and will be less effective in others.

If the skill is used in combat, or effects combat in a direct manner weight it based on it's direct, or indirect, value on combat related values.

If it's not used in combat, or it's effects do not apply to combat in a direct manner... Don't.

It's part of a separate system that has it's own metrics and balance points. Balance it internally, laterally, and oppositionally within that system.

As to having balance between the classes based on their skills versus combat abilities: There's not really going to be one. Or utility casting. Because those things aren't compatible systems. Each one has it's own balance points and variances.

I think what you mean to ask is "How do you reconcile different classes having differing levels of effectiveness across different systems?" And the answer to that is, I don't.

Yes. Rogues have a lot more applicable skills than the Fighter does for exploration and such. But the Fighter contributes to skill challenges in a different way. Instead of throwing Intelligence Checks she'll be using Strength Checks to overcome the various obstacles. The modifiers are, mostly, the same. Yeah, Rogues get to be really good at a couple of skills (Beyond the expectations of a Fighter's results), but the application of those skills is going to be limited to a specific subset of encounters and likely won't trivialize them.

It's like how 4e did (and 5e has options for) skill challenges. You must achieve X successes before Y failures or you've failed the encounter. Every character is going to have a certain value they offer toward those successes modified by a randomized roll and... Go.

Everyone Contributes in different ways. Balance follows.

[Desamir]

I think what you mean to ask is "How do you reconcile different classes having differing levels of effectiveness across different systems?" And the answer to that is, I don't.

That's what I was looking for.


Everyone Contributes in different ways. Balance follows.

Subjectively. Hence, perception and feel.

[Steampunkette]

No, Desamir... Just. No.

Once again you're looking at me telling you "You math it as a separate system" and telling me my motivation.

I'm done with you. Find someone else to harangue.

[gfishfunk]

No, Desamir... Just. No.

Once again you're looking at me telling you "You math it as a separate system" and telling me my motivation.

I'm done with you. Find someone else to harangue.

I wish I could rep people in this system.

[Desamir]

No, Desamir... Just. No.

Once again you're looking at me telling you "You math it as a separate system" and telling me my motivation.

I'm done with you. Find someone else to harangue.

You: Feel doesn't matter to me, I only care about objective game balance
Me: Game balance is subjective though
You: STOP TELLING ME MY MOTIVATION YOU SEA LIONING DINK

Okay, bud. We're done here. You were obviously just on here to pick a fight, and I regret taking the bait. Next time, if you intend to argue in bad faith and name-call, I'd appreciate it if you didn't reply. Thanks.

You claimed you had an objective, math-based concept of game balance. What you evidently meant is that you can compare DPR to DPR and skill checks to skill checks, but since there is no crossover, the final evaluation is subjective and perception-based. Maybe DPR matters more to you than the ability to teleport, or vice versa, or maybe you're playing in a social-heavy game, or an exploration-heavy game, or a combat-heavy game, where different abilities become more or less valuable. That means game balance is subjective, which is exactly what I said in my original post.

Anyways, this conversation has run its course.

[MrStabby]

No, Desamir... Just. No.

Once again you're looking at me telling you "You math it as a separate system" and telling me my motivation.

I'm done with you. Find someone else to harangue.

If there doesn't exist an objective ranking of a given increase to skills vs a given increase to combat power then there can't be an objective comparison of power. Which is fine, it can be subjective. There isn't anything wrong with it being subjective.

By subjective I mean that some people, in some parties, in some games may find an option more useful. It doesn't mean that people will even be remotely evenly split between their preferences.

[Steampunkette]

Comparing Skill Use to Combat is comparing different systems.

Can Skill Use avoid combat? Yes. Can Combat avoid skill use? Sure. But Skill Use is not Combat. So they're balanced separately because they're separate systems.

A Rogue, for all the skills in the world they get, gets plenty of Sneak Attack damage and Damage Avoidance to keep them in balance with other characters in combat. For all the Utility a Wizard gets out of their Spells for out of combat purposes, their damage and mitigation abilities aren't hindered.

They're treated as two separate systems and balanced separately. It's also why Backgrounds were separated out as a way to let any character take any skill whatsoever, by either taking one of the pregen backgrounds (Fighter with the Rogue background) or by creating your own background by choosing any two skills you like.

[MrStabby]

I agree they are different systems. I am not sure why you think that is relevant. If I want to get through a door i can use the combat system to kill the guard or the skill system to talk him in to letting me through. Same objective two systems. So what?

By balanced separately do you mean not balanced against each other? Are you saying that balance is subjective or are you saying that they can be balanced against each other?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

If you run a no-caster game, I can see how it might be easier to bring PAM and Sharpshooter down to the level of the weaker options. In the land of the blind, and all.

But in a complete game of D&D, PAM and Sharpshooter characters aren't OP; they're just more powerful than weaker options. Nerfing PAM/SS and calling it a day, in this case, makes game balance worse. Casters are OP, and so any leg up to mundanes has a worthwhile element, even if it has internal balance issues. Now, you might just say "nerf casters, then." That could work, but it's a severe pain in the ass to accomplish such a task; it's far easier to buff the weaker mundane options and raise the difficulty of encounters a tad.

[Steampunkette]

I agree they are different systems. I am not sure why you think that is relevant. If I want to get through a door i can use the combat system to kill the guard or the skill system to talk him in to letting me through. Same objective two systems. So what?

By balanced separately do you mean not balanced against each other? Are you saying that balance is subjective or are you saying that they can be balanced against each other?

I'm not saying Balance is Subjective. I'm saying they're not balanced against each other because they're Apples to Orangutans.

Both can allow you to achieve your goal, but have to do so using different metrics that cannot be balanced against because Persuasion doesn't deal with Hit Point Damage over Time, which is the primary function of combat.

Lateral Balance between Skills (Balance between different characters) is dealt with in a core system (Skills and Backgrounds) and as a subsystem function of the core character creation structure. Specifically the Flexible nature of the Background system as previously noted, and the standard progression of the proficiency bonus to maintain bounded accuracy successes.

A Fighter can be good at Persuasion by having a decent charisma and throwing on a background that's gives persuasion proficiency. He won't be as good at it as the Rogue with the Higher Charisma and Expertise in Persuasion. However he'll be about as good as a Rogue with negative Charisma and Expertise in Persuasion if he selects a particularly high Charisma and pumps it out.

Such a situation is dreadfully unlikely (Unless the Rogue is using Expertise to shore up his weaknesses rather than get ridiculous at the things he's good at). But the system is designed to allow for it in a very loose balance.

But let's look at the skills themselves. Let's say you've got a Fighter and she's -strong- like an ox. You skipped Dexterity, threw her in full plate, and gave her Athletics.

Athletics can be used for swimming, climbing, jumping, and breaking grapple checks or, depending on your DM, making a variety of strength style checks (Bending Bars, Lifting Gates, Breaking Objects, Etc).

Let's compare that to a particularly ubiquitous dexterity skill: Stealth. Stealth allows you to Hide.

That's it. That's the one situation Stealth is designed for.

Acrobatics lets you move across narrow or slippery surfaces and escape grapples. Annnnd that's all.

The skills are designed to be internally balanced against each other by assumed ubiquity of use. You've got Athletics as a generalist skill primarily used by those with Strength as their one important stat jumping over things, climbing obstacles, breaking stuff apart, or swimming across open water. The classes that favor having a lot of skills, on the other hand, are choosing a lot of individually specialized options with narrower applications.

Having a good Dexterity mod will make you pretty good at plenty of skill checks. But you need proficiency in 3-4 of them to cover the same amount of skill use situations as that Fighter with Athletics.

[DanyBallon]

If you run a no-caster game, I can see how it might be easier to bring PAM and Sharpshooter down to the level of the weaker options. In the land of the blind, and all.

But in a complete game of D&D, PAM and Sharpshooter characters aren't OP; they're just more powerful than weaker options. Nerfing PAM/SS and calling it a day, in this case, makes game balance worse. Casters are OP, and so any leg up to mundanes has a worthwhile element, even if it has internal balance issues. Now, you might just say "nerf casters, then." That could work, but it's a severe pain in the ass to accomplish such a task; it's far easier to buff the weaker mundane options and raise the difficulty of encounters a tad.

You're sayiong that nerfing PAM/SS will just be another blow to mundanes. But not as far as yesterday I talked about maybe removing the con bonus to hp from casters, and everyone was saying that I should nerf casters.

It's jsut a matter of perception. No one wants to see it's preferred class being nerfed, but I don't think it's always good to buff the weaker element as it often lead to powercreep, and I find this worse than seing my favored class being nerfed.

[Breashios]

I think I mostly agree with the OP supposition that we should


... accept that not all options are equals and that in order to have a decent average, you need to have some options better, and some weaker. As long as both end of the spectrum are not too far from the average, they remain balanced...

Whatever this argument is about there being two different systems; a combat system and a skill system appears silly to me. There are additional dimensions, abilities, and even ribbons that might rise or fall in value depending on the campaign world, not to mention the makeup of the party, synergies, etc. I didn’t see anything in the OP that asked about purely combat balancing or the opposite.

Overall, balancing must be subjective. Within a narrow set of parameters, we can approximate objectivity, but this ignores the real world where stuff happens. It might be useful to have statistical analysis so that we can make a more educated guess of what to choose when faced with two options, but that is not going to mean the better statistical choice will either turn out to be better in actual play or more enjoyable.

As long as the balance is approximate (to the extent that 5e appears to be) little adjustment needs to be made. Given that as a starting point, a DM might cater to a particular player by giving his character a small increase in power or utility if he feels it will not hurt the game or steal the thunder of another player. That is probably the way I would go, if I made any change at all. (If I wanted a particular feel to my campaign world, I think it would be easier to control by "nerfing", but I don't think that is what we are discussing here.)

Case in point regarding expected value: In the campaign I am currently running the most useful feat the party has is Keen Mind. I doubt that would be very high on most lists and I did not expect two players to take it. So far it has kept them from getting lost, helped with important timing and allowed them to remember important information and behaviors they had observed which turned out to be critical at later times.

[Steampunkette]

"To have Balance you Need Imbalance" is an illogical statement at best.

I get that it doesn't bother you that the balance is as loose between different classes or kits as it is. But if it bugs someone else let them work with others it bothers to find a middle ground that works for them rather than interjecting to say "Well it doesn't bother -me- so you should try not to let it bother you".

That's not helpful. It's just bothersome.

Like walking up to someone who has depression and saying "Have you tried not being sad?"

[Desamir]

I think I mostly agree with the OP supposition that we should



Whatever this argument is about there being two different systems; a combat system and a skill system appears silly to me. There are additional dimensions, abilities, and even ribbons that might rise or fall in value depending on the campaign world, not to mention the makeup of the party, synergies, etc. I didn’t see anything in the OP that asked about purely combat balancing or the opposite.

Overall, balancing must be subjective. Within a narrow set of parameters, we can approximate objectivity, but this ignores the real world where stuff happens. It might be useful to have statistical analysis so that we can make a more educated guess of what to choose when faced with two options, but that is not going to mean the better statistical choice will either turn out to be better in actual play or more enjoyable.

As long as the balance is approximate (to the extent that 5e appears to be) little adjustment needs to be made. Given that as a starting point, a DM might cater to a particular player by giving his character a small increase in power or utility if he feels it will not hurt the game or steal the thunder of another player. That is probably the way I would go, if I made any change at all. (If I wanted a particular feel to my campaign world, I think it would be easier to control by "nerfing", but I don't think that is what we are discussing here.)

Case in point regarding expected value: In the campaign I am currently running the most useful feat the party has is Keen Mind. I doubt that would be very high on most lists and I did not expect two players to take it. So far it has kept them from getting lost, helped with important timing and allowed them to remember important information and behaviors they had observed which turned out to be critical at later times.

Well said. I've had the same experience as you, where options that usually get red highlights in handbooks sometimes end up being the most useful/powerful ones due to the nature of the campaign. Mask of Many Faces was the example in my case. As it turns out, at-will disguises are pretty strong in a heist campaign.

[2D8HP]

YOU SEA LIONING DINK.

While the post wasn't directed towards me, my curiosity had me "Google" both "sealioning" and "dink", to figure out what they mean

"Sealioning" turns out to mean "pretending to be ignorant just to be annoying", which I've been accused of before at this Forum (I really was ignorant), but "dink"?

"Dual-Income-No-Kids"?

That just doesn't make any sense.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

You're sayiong that nerfing PAM/SS will just be another blow to mundanes. But not as far as yesterday I talked about maybe removing the con bonus to hp from casters, and everyone was saying that I should nerf casters.

It's jsut a matter of perception. No one wants to see it's preferred class being nerfed, but I don't think it's always good to buff the weaker element as it often lead to powercreep, and I find this worse than seing my favored class being nerfed.I didn't see the thread, but you should always expect blowback on a proposed nerf. I'm not sure caster HP is where I'd balance things, especially since it makes them even more reliant on their most powerful tricks to survive and makes a full-caster gish and many cleric styles unplayable, but at least that change wouldn't go directly against its stated purpose.

Classic power creep occurs when the introduction or modification of options expands the Pareto Frontier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency) of optimal character choices. Some feats, like Weapon Master, will never be the best option barring a complete re-write. They will always be on the interior of that frontier, such that any group who would be made more powerful by a buff to that option could make themselves even more powerful by taking other options. It seems like you're more concerned with the power floor of unoptimized groups, when the most egregious forms of game imbalance come from some players taking the most powerful options, and some taking mediocre/bad ones.

[Sigreid]

What I have gotten out of reading this thread.
1. Combat potential can be mathematically compared objectively.

2. Skill and non combat magic can be mathematically compared fairly effectively.

3. The relative value of 1 and 2 to the game at the table is subjective and can't be mathematically compared in any meaningful way.

4. In my subjective opinion MMO balance criteria is only marginally useful for determining real balance in a game that has more to it than combat.

[Dr.Samurai]

...but "dink"?

"Dual-Income-No-Kids"?

That just doesn't make any sense.
It does to me! Sign me up! :smallbiggrin:

[Desamir]

What I have gotten out of reading this thread.
1. Combat potential can be mathematically compared objectively.

2. Skill and non combat magic can be mathematically compared fairly effectively.

3. The relative value of 1 and 2 to the game at the table is subjective and can't be mathematically compared in any meaningful way.

4. In my subjective opinion MMO balance criteria is only marginally useful for determining real balance in a game that has more to it than combat.

This is my take as well, with the caveat that there are tons of abilities that can't be objectively compared even in combat. It's hard to quantify how much Cunning Action is worth, for example, or Slow Fall, or even Feral Instinct.

[Steampunkette]

http://spaceballs.wikia.com/wiki/Dinks

[MrStabby]

I would say combat potential can be objectively compared only under an applied set of assumptions.

If you assume two short rests per day, as an example. If you assume that AC of every opponent is 17 as another. If the saves you face are 10% wisdom saves might be a third.

The conclusions of this are valid , but only under the same set of assumptions. If you have a DM happy to use AC 20 enemies or more than an average number of illusions or even who allows a long rest before the toughest fights then this all falls apart.

Some value may carry over to closer scenarios, but with so many ways in which a real game can differ from assumptions you are basically dealing with a DM dependant metric.

[Steampunkette]

Accuracy, damage, hit points, armor class and save DCS are "mostly" standardized by CR. Oppositional balance is covered.

[MrStabby]

Accuracy, damage, hit points, armor class and save DCS are "mostly" standardized by CR. Oppositional balance is covered.

Hardly. Some DMs may favour encounters with one big enemy, others with multiple small enemies. Average AC will vary between these. There is no standardised DM.

[Typhon]

While the post wasn't directed towards me, my curiosity had me "Google" both "sealioning" and "dink", to figure out what they mean

"Sealioning" turns out to mean "pretending to be ignorant just to be annoying", which I've been accused of before at this Forum (I really was ignorant), but "dink"?

"Dual-Income-No-Kids"?

That just doesn't make any sense.

Was only meaning to peruse this thread and this post actively made me laugh out loud. I mean literally and not just internet jargon lol.

Thank you for that.

[Steampunkette]

Hardly. Some DMs may favour encounters with one big enemy, others with multiple small enemies. Average AC will vary between these. There is no standardised DM.

That's not what I mean.

If you're doing a CR 6 "Medium" encounter for 4 players you've got X monsters of level 1 or 2, Y monsters of level 2 or 3, and Z monsters of level 5.

Any CR 5 enemy is going to have around the same HP, AC, Attack, and Damage as most other CR 5 enemies (Modified by combat role, of course, which means higher attack and lower damage, here and there, or higher AC and lower HP or higher both and lower damage/attack, etc.). Similarly, all the CR 1s have their own similar values. Some will have a higher damage, or lower attack, higher AC and lower HP, or neat special abilities and modified other factors to compensate.

A Spectre and a Ghoul, for example, are both CR 1 and have 22 hit points. The Ghoul's got a paralyzing attack, the Spectre's got life drain and half damage from nonmagical weapons. +4 and 10 damage, average, compared to the Ghoul's +4 and 7 (or +2 and 9) on the assumption that the Ghoul will manage to paralyze someone (Thus reducing incoming damage and increasing outgoing damage) while the Spectre's damage is all in one shot.

Meanwhile an Animated Armor, with no special abilities and the Dispel Magic weakness, has 33 HP and Multiattack. +4 and 5 each, with a higher AC than either the Ghoul or the Spectre.

All of it balanced around the same chart the DM gets access to on 274 of the DMG, dropped in an acid bath, adjusted, and then playtested.

It's not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but unless your DM is ignoring the expected challenges a character of your level should be facing, the average DPR and MPR (Mitigation per Round) of a group of 4 characters should have the same relative difficulty with one hard target that makes up Encounter level 6 as they would with a crowd that makes up Encounter level 6...

Well. Unless you're packing a pile of Fireballs. :P

[MrStabby]

This is exactly what I mean by assumptions. You cannot assume that DMs will be, at any given level, using the same number of creatures of the same level.

For example a spectre and a ghoul, as you noted, are the same CR. In terms of combat difficulty you can get something similar in difficulty by building the encounter from zombies. As you also noted something with access to fireball is superb vs masses of creatures.

Is a great-weapon barbarian better or worse in combat than a wizard with fireball? Depends on your DM. There is no objective answer, it depends on the type of game you expect to play and how you value being good at different things. Is it better to be able to do good single target damage vs good AoE damage? It can't be answered for everyone, it depends on the viewpoint you have from the DM you play with.

[Steampunkette]

If your DM is building encounters based on the guidelines in the book (I.E. the way the game is designed to be played) then it shouldn't be an issue.

If She's going off on her own and throwing things at you that don't follow the guidelines, then yeah. There's no way to balance the game based on her machinations.

That's why you don't balance the game around every DM's personal decisions to go off script. You balance the game on the script and if they go off it that's their problem.

That doesn't mean the game is unbalanceable, or that any attempt to do so is folly. It just means some people don't follow the rules and you can't possibly account for those individuals. So you don't.

[MrStabby]

If your DM is building encounters based on the guidelines in the book (I.E. the way the game is designed to be played) then it shouldn't be an issue.

If She's going off on her own and throwing things at you that don't follow the guidelines, then yeah. There's no way to balance the game based on her machinations.

That's why you don't balance the game around every DM's personal decisions to go off script. You balance the game on the script and if they go off it that's their problem.

That doesn't mean the game is unbalanceable, or that any attempt to do so is folly. It just means some people don't follow the rules and you can't possibly account for those individuals. So you don't.

I would refer you to the table on P82 of the DMG, encounter multipliers. Here it gives the change in difficulty expected from 1 monster to 15 or more monsters. The way the game is intended to be played by the DMG is encapsulated within this range. For a given modified XP 14 the type of monster that will make up an encounter where there are 14 of them, will be very different from an encounter where there is 1.

[Gizmogidget]

My two cents

I personally believe that it is okay to have small amounts of game imbalance, because then optimizers can really have fun with the game. But I don't have fun where 1 bad or good choice makes you considerably more or less effective than your peers. I think it's okay to have optimization, as long as that optimization requires actual work rather than it just being, wow they released this broken subclass option, let's play it.

[Steampunkette]

I would refer you to the table on P82 of the DMG, encounter multipliers. Here it gives the change in difficulty expected from 1 monster to 15 or more monsters. The way the game is intended to be played by the DMG is encapsulated within this range. For a given modified XP 14 the type of monster that will make up an encounter where there are 14 of them, will be very different from an encounter where there is 1.

Yes. It will.

But the DPR/MPR is going to be -about- the same. How? Mobs. 14 CR 5 characters individually throw out 33-38 DPR if they land a hit, but you use the Mob mechanic to determine how many hits go off instead of rolling. CR 5s have a +6 to hit, so assuming AC 22 on your player's part that requires 4 NPCs attacking to make a hit, break the 14 down into 12 (and a little over) and you get 3 hits, averaging 99-114 a round of DPR.

Meanwhile the CR 15 NPC is gonna chuck out around 93-98 average DPR.

Slightly higher from the Mob, but it also averages out Critical Hits and you can wipe scads of them out with big damaging AoEs. Of course, you can shut down the single hard target with powerful single target spells at the same slot-level so, really, it's about the same expenditure considering some of those 15 CR 5s are going to make saves and require the Physical characters to mop them up...

What if the party is basically all Melee? Well! Then they're going to take longer to kill the mob of NPCs because of the amount of moving and attacking it'll take to achieve, which in turn lowers the incoming DPR, but will probably take longer than the single target taking all of the damage from all of the characters.

So yes. It's a very different fight, But DPR and MPR both come into play to represent a similar outcome.

Though, again, this is based on the AVERAGES on everything. Swingy Dice and party composition/ability change things which is why the DMG has guidelines on how to maintain appropriate challenges for the party...

[2D8HP]

Dinks (http://spaceballs.wikia.com/wiki/Dinks)

Spaceballs?

Thanks, I barely remember that movie (Dark Helmut, Pizza the Hut, and Mel Brooks as Yoda, is about all I recall).

Odd choice for an insult, lately I tend to go for ones used by

Captain Haddock in the Tintin comics (http://www.tintinologist.org/guides/lists/curses.html)

As to the thread topic, I don't much mind all the power creep at lower levels, but at higher levels, the extra complexity annoys me, as does all the world-shaking.

[Sariel Vailo]

The problem is that people generally think that the best way to go about things is to "improve" the less powerful options, when in fact the better choice is usually to decrease the effectiveness of the perceived "better" options.

I'll wait here patiently while everyone goes to get their pitchforks and start screaming about how "nerfing" things is bad. But in the mean time I'll simply state that one of those options introduces power creep, while the other safeguards against it.

welcome brother to the secret society of nerfs ok.we need a better name we meet most threads. but you just sounded like satan t some people but wisdom is important a nerf helps you figure out where to draw the lineor where to jump.
but i digress get ur pitchforks ill just turn ya inta bunnie and light ya a blaze

[Asmotherion]

I am not sure on my oppinion on the matter.

Part of me believes that "all options should be equally lucrative", though not necesserally equal in power. In other words, you win something, but at the cost of loosing something equally awesome.

An other part of me however just loves to see "trap options", and when I play a no-optimisation scenario, I make sure to get them and use them just to have fun with something I would normally never pick, and yet feel refreshed for going for something diferent than my "default build" for class X.

Is the Raven Queen Warlock Patron Optimisable? Not really... That didn't stop me from having loads of Fun RPing as a Black Crow, getting the Beast Speach Invocation, and overall moonlighting as some kind of Gothic Druid.

Finally, I hate ability Nerfing, mostly because there are many diferent kinds of players out there; Some like to Optimise, others like to be in no-opt groups to raise the Difficulty of the game, wile others just like a relaxing game experiance, where they focus on the Fantastic elements of the game (and their implications) and neglect numbers; For example, someone might just love the abovementioned "Beast Speach" invocation, because he just wants his character to be able to talk to animals, and doesn't care how situational it will be for this to be usefull. An other might want his Barbarian able to Eldritch Blast, just because he likes the Awesomness of a Fearless 7 foot tall guy with a Greatsward being able to blast things with hand-beams on occasion.

[Breashios]

Is the Raven Queen Warlock Patron Optimisable? Not really... That didn't stop me from having loads of Fun RPing as a Black Crow, getting the Beast Speach Invocation, and overall moonlighting as some kind of Gothic Druid...

Bravo! That is one of the aspects I'm talking about.

[Desamir]

I'd rather tweak the less popular options than nerf the more popular ones. It's more fun for the players that way.

By the way, people decrying "power creep" are misusing that term a bit. Power creep (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_video_game_terms#Power_creep) in game design is when you introduce new options that are more powerful than the old options. The old options gradually become obsolete as the cycle repeats.

Tweaking a weak option to make it more appealing does not create power creep, it provides players another attractive option they can use to meet their character concept.

[DanyBallon]

I'd rather tweak the less popular options than nerf the more popular ones. It's more fun for the players that way.

By the way, people decrying "power creep" are misusing that term a bit. Power creep (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_video_game_terms#Power_creep) in game design is when you introduce new options that are more powerful than the old options. The old options gradually become obsolete as the cycle repeats.

Tweaking a weak option to make it more appealing does not create power creep, it provides players another attractive option they can use to meet their character concept.

I know, and when I say that sliding the average toward the higher end may lead to power creep I mean it in that sense. If everyone is buff the lower end features to be on par with the better one, WotC will be more inclined to release stuff that is even better than what was previously released. It's the reason why I tend to be on the side of "this feature is fine even if not optimal" of an argument in a "fix" thread. :smallbiggrin: