What do you use for a measuring stick for New content?

[anthon]

When determining how you feel about OP/Balance/Versatility of new content like race/classes, especially classes,

what do you use as your Standard of Comparison? What is your Ruler for New Content?

I ask because when i buzz through various forums including this one, redd/disco/etc., even youtube vlogs, I see a strong tendency to use a completely different measuring stick for norms than what I use.

For me, if something is being compared to OP or not OP, I typically use Wizards and Fighters as my first "go to" classes for checking stuff like whether the DPS from melee or the AOE from a new spell is good/bad, or whether the high/low level version of the new content (published or home brew) steps out the circle.

Sometimes I use the Moon Druid, the Assassin Rogue, or one of my two favorite Clerics: Healbot of Life and Fireball Bandaid of Light.

These are all Core classes, fairly generic, and I think they are pretty hard hitting. Meanwhile, I tend to use human, wood elf, non-winged DMG aasimar, and halfling for the measuring stick of races. That's a mixed bag but it means I expect some 16s and a feat or equivalent. Core all the way.

But when I see people comparing Tasha's or UA Material or Homebrew, I have No (expletive)-ing clue WHERE in Gygax's Green Sky they are getting their views on balance.

Do some people just skip level 1-4 and stop at level 10? Is every class now just a component in some cumbersome quirky build, where "oh, we can't let X class ever have that because if they multiclassed to this other weird thing in a supplement book the whole game would cave in".

By the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth, what has happened? You do realize 10d10 isn't the highest DPS in the game right?

I'm no expert on 5e by any means. I didn't know you could cast some attack cantrips in the same round as a regular spell until last week because i never bothered to consider action economy treated reaction, action, and bonus action as separate turn activities. When I first played the game our DM didn't know concentrations couldn't stack and we didn't realize much stuff didn't stack either. We even thought attribute bonuses were independent of classes because none of us were playing classes that had anything but identical tables.. Ah 2015....

I'm not afraid to compare a new class to Action Surge with GWF at 20th level and 8 attacks x 2d6+lots.
I'm not afraid to read the fine print of a double damage backstab or a 600 ft shot through the forest.
I'm aware purple worm poison is a thing.
I don't pretend the wizard can't turn into an adult or even ancient dragon if he gets especially ornery.


So I don't stop my ruler at level 10. Do you?

What do you use for your measuring stick?

[Witty Username]

I generally stop keeping precise track by tier 4, because non-sense is the norm rather than the exception.
Other than that, races I look for patterns like the ASI's number of abilities, whatnot.
Sub classes, do the fit the pattern of the previous, do the numbers line up with similar abilities, is it an ability I want to use, etc. So I guess I use best/worse existing subclass as the measure. Then check similar roles by other classes if it is concerning. For example, a new best monk subclass wouldn't give me concern right away, I would measure it against fighter and rogue and see if it is in line with their average to better options and probably call it good.
Feats, do they replace existing stuff in a way that is better.

I weigh in favor of the first 4 levels and am less concerned the higher level the effects generally.


Twilight cleric is the only subclass to flag a warning for me so far, so I may be too blase on the subject.

[Kane0]

My yardstick is consrantly being refined every time i get a new UA survey to respond to.

Generally speaking i dont really think its a great practice to look at one item eg Hexblade Warlock and use that as a measurement against most/everything else. Better to get a broader understanding and have a full workbench of tools than just the one.

[Granitecosmos]

I compare new subclasses to existing subclasses of the same class. I sincerely hope we won't get any more new classes after the Artificer. Similarly, I compare new spells to similar spells on the same spell list. Feats are all over the place so I won't even pretend those have any level of balance. TCE turned race balance upside-down by removing ASI synergy from the equation so that's pretty irrelevant at this point, too; they are essentially a free ASI plus an overloaded half-feat now (at least mostly), possessing the same lack of balance feats have.


Do some people just skip level 1-4 and stop at level 10? Is every class now just a component in some cumbersome quirky build, where "oh, we can't let X class ever have that because if they multiclassed to this other weird thing in a supplement book the whole game would cave in".
My experience is, DMs often propose starting at level 3 (or sometimes even at level 5), mostly due to level 1 and 2 being quite deadly in modules. Speaking of modules, most end at around level 12 or so; thus people tend to plan their builds accordingly. At higher levels, every semblance of cross-class balance is out of the window anyway, especially when you go as high as level 20 (a level 20 Moon Druid is practically indestructible; meanwhile several other classes' level 20 ability seems insultingly weak compared to that).

As for multiclassing, the same principles apply and not all classes/subclasses are created equal when it comes to that, especially when certain abilities scale with proficiency bonus instead of class levels. The game is mostly balanced around action economy (at least I hope so; it's debatable whether there is any real balance at all at this point).

My opinion as a DM: as long as the players are having fun and aren't demolishing the game with some seriously ridiculous combination of broken features, I'm fine with it. That mostly translates to "I will inspect UA and homebrew before I allow it".

[Warder]

I very rarely gauge balance in new content at all, except to filter out the most egregious examples. I've found that 5e becomes a vastly better game when you shift balance concerns way down the priority list. I don't throw it out the window entirely, just don't really worry a lot about swings in either direction. Swings create memorable moments anyway.

[MoiMagnus]

Do some people just skip level 1-4 and stop at level 10?

Yes. Though exact starting level and ending level can vary.


Is every class now just a component in some cumbersome quirky build, where "oh, we can't let X class ever have that because if they multiclassed to this other weird thing in a supplement book the whole game would cave in".

I don't think the devs care that much about balancing multiclassing. Class features that scale with proficiency bonuses are a clear example IMO.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't really care about balance. My players aren't power gamers, and pick things thematically rather than "what's the most powerful right now".

My measuring stick is "does this fit in the current campaign/setting? Do I want this weird crap in my game?" I'm very much against kitchen sink approach to worldbuilding, so if I don't think genies are a good fit for the game I'm running, there's no genie warlock, and if I decide aarakockra bring nothing to the setting, there are no birdmen (even though there may be winged tieflings).

[MrStabby]

Well I adopt a pretty strict standard compared to some - I.e. will it make balance better or worse rather than "will it break the game", which depending on your definition of "break" can be a really, really silly metric.

In terms of classes I would consider an appropriate benchmark... probably PHB sorcerer and PHB fighter as options that are pretty close to the centre of the power spectrum (sorcerer slightly above, fighter slightly below) but generally I will try and compare in a similar role. I.e. if there is a healing class I am more likely to hold it up against the cleric or druid than the wizard.

I tend to also be stricter with something that would obviate another option. If something is nearly strictly better than another option it is likely to be subjected to more scrutiny.

Finally, my notion of balance is measured by how much I have to bend my game to retain it. If I have to intervene to support longer or shorter adventuring days or add monsters with certain damage resistances or what ever to help options line up then this is a black mark against the class. For example Twighlight cleric gets a black mark with me as it means as a DM I cannot have HP attritional days as part of the challenge on a campaign. It ties my hands.

[stoutstien]

Well I adopt a pretty strict standard compared to some - I.e. will it make balance better or worse rather than "will it break the game", which depending on your definition of "break" can be a really, really silly metric.

In terms of classes I would consider an appropriate benchmark... probably PHB sorcerer and PHB fighter as options that are pretty close to the centre of the power spectrum (sorcerer slightly above, fighter slightly below) but generally I will try and compare in a similar role. I.e. if there is a healing class I am more likely to hold it up against the cleric or druid than the wizard.

I tend to also be stricter with something that would obviate another option. If something is nearly strictly better than another option it is likely to be subjected to more scrutiny.

Finally, my notion of balance is measured by how much I have to bend my game to retain it. If I have to intervene to support longer or shorter adventuring days or add monsters with certain damage resistances or what ever to help options line up then this is a black mark against the class. For example Twighlight cleric gets a black mark with me as it means as a DM I cannot have HP attritional days as part of the challenge on a campaign. It ties my hands.

THP spamming isn't new and while twilight is very strong it's doesn't shift tactics the party uses. Also the party should be facing challenges anyways that include effects that bypass THP every once in the while (max hp reduction is also a nice curve to toss in once in a while), constant low damage pressure across-the-board, and movement reduction/ larger environments than 30x30 spaces.

On topic-
My bar is closer to what makes sense in a given setting campaign or game first and then worry about the range each player should fall in crunch wise.

I'm more concerned about any noticable discrepancies within a party. While 5e doesn't have the tier lists of old some options are stronger than others so if I see a potential shepherd druid and storm herald barbarian in a session zero I might make some adjustments then to preemptively avoid major gaps.

[MrStabby]

Also the party should be facing challenges anyways that include effects that bypass THP every once in the while.

I think this is exactly the thing that means some new options are suspect. They tell me what I as a DM should include to keep things balanced. The moment that game says you need X type of encounter to be balanced it loses marks.

To be clear this is inevitable that there will be some of this. It isnt a binary thing about whether every option is exactly equal in every conceivable fight/challenge, but it is about the degree to which there is an imbalance introduced by my following a theme in a campaign and the degree I need to break that theme to build a "fair" campaign world.

[stoutstien]

I think this is exactly the thing that means some new options are suspect. They tell me what I as a DM should include to keep things balanced. The moment that game says you need X type of encounter to be balanced it loses marks.

To be clear this is inevitable that there will be some of this. It isnt a binary thing about whether every option is exactly equal in every conceivable fight/challenge, but it is about the degree to which there is an imbalance introduced by my following a theme in a campaign and the degree I need to break that theme to build a "fair" campaign world.

My point was that THP isn't new. The encounter building rules have been off from the get go. Big scary single target encounters are woefully over valued, HP attrition isn't scary within a single encounter without pushing them into the "RNG will decide" territory, most encounters are decided with the first round, and most npc stat blocks are too binary and lack depth.

I strive for trying to build games that are good regardless of the party make-up but honestly I'd say I have 60% success rate and closer to 80% in the no feat/multiclass game I ran.

I'm more worried about stacking bonuses being slowly added to the game than just new ways to do the old things.

[da newt]

I'm a pretty simple guy so my grading criteria are pretty simple.

I focus on lvl 5 - 12 because that's where I spend 90% of my time.
For DPR I use Agonizing Blast as a reference.
For other feats, species, subclasses, etc I try to use the most similar proxy for comparison.

For me loose balance is important (no outliers), I don't like one trick ponies or anything that provides a no cost 'get out of jail free' auto solution, and I believe for every significant strength there should be a significant weakness/cost.

I am concerned we are seeing some power creep with all of the new content.

[MrStabby]

My point was that THP isn't new. The encounter building rules have been off from the get go. Big scary single target encounters are woefully over valued, HP attrition isn't scary within a single encounter without pushing them into the "RNG will decide" territory, most encounters are decided with the first round, and most npc stat blocks are too binary and lack depth.

I strive for trying to build games that are good regardless of the party make-up but honestly I'd say I have 60% success rate and closer to 80% in the no feat/multiclass game I ran.

I'm more worried about stacking bonuses being slowly added to the game than just new ways to do the old things.

So to me Twighlight cleric has a few issues (I feel I am being a bit harsh here as thematically I quite like the class, but it just illustrates things well).

So firstly is the whole thing about attrition no longer being an issue, but i covered that.

But the role with respect to existing classes is also interesting. THPs dont stack. Suddenly the fiend pact warlock effectively loses a class feature as you add the cleric to the party. There is an element to the design that just supersedes (at least partially) other classes.

These things alone are not deal breakers but add them all up and you get something that could be a lot better for the game if done differently.

[OldTrees1]

5E intended design has a higher floor and a lower ceiling than I am used to, so I don't need to check intended design for balance. Unintended usages can cause me to raise an eyebrow. Things like Simulacrum Wish chain are obvious.

I also never check DPS in 5E. Standard difficulty in 5E is heavily biased in the PC's favor. With that as the status quo and the high floor/low ceiling, 5E can handle characters UP in DPS and being OP in DPS does not affect the status quo. So imbalance in DPS only matters if the players say it matters.

[stoutstien]

So to me Twighlight cleric has a few issues (I feel I am being a bit harsh here as thematically I quite like the class, but it just illustrates things well).

So firstly is the whole thing about attrition no longer being an issue, but i covered that.

But the role with respect to existing classes is also interesting. THPs dont stack. Suddenly the fiend pact warlock effectively loses a class feature as you add the cleric to the party. There is an element to the design that just supersedes (at least partially) other classes.

These things alone are not deal breakers but add them all up and you get something that could be a lot better for the game if done differently.

TBH the THP cycling mini game is something I actually enjoy but I can see certain subclasses having clashes like celestial warlock and the IL feat. PC option conflicts are a hard balance to maintain.

For non preplanned parties this can be an issue but for ones that do having multiple THP sources it is a blast to see in super deadly play because the new question isn't how much real HP loss can they prevent but rather how little resources they have to spend to over come the challenge because the next one could be 2-3X deadly or the next SR/LR isn't known.

*Personally I wish THP was split to cover different damage types depending on theatrically elements rather than just generic invisible meat points. This would allow the smaller and more limited values to still have a niche where the big values are still noticable but limited in scope. E.g. the twilight THP only works within the aura or only counts for a select list of damage types and the dark one's blessing is more universal.*

[False God]

I tend to look at anything that becomes official as "how much impact would this have on my existing campaign world?"
How much does this affect the overall lore of the world?
How does this affect my desired magic level?
How does this affect my desired tech level?
Nations? Inter/intra-species relations?

I'm not at all worried about the power level, that's something I address with people and encourage them to remember this is a shared gaming experience and they shouldn't be trampling on other people's enjoyments by attempting to break the game. A good (power)gamer should have learned by now how to be powerful and responsible. (insert Uncle Ben quote here).

But players often see something new and cool in a new book and want to play it, and I just have to make an effort to temper assumptions that "just because it's in a book (even the PHB) does not mean its available in my game". If you build it, I get to review it and give it a stamp of approval before it comes into play. I'm usually pretty okay with whatever, but on occasion things just don't mix.

---
So my guideline is purely subjective. "How well will this content work for me at my table?" It's not used to make vast judgements on the content's quality, just if it works for me or not. Some does, some doesn't.

[Warder]

I tend to look at anything that becomes official as "how much impact would this have on my existing campaign world?"
How much does this affect the overall lore of the world?
How does this affect my desired magic level?
How does this affect my desired tech level?
Nations? Inter/intra-species relations?

I'm not at all worried about the power level, that's something I address with people and encourage them to remember this is a shared gaming experience and they shouldn't be trampling on other people's enjoyments by attempting to break the game. A good (power)gamer should have learned by now how to be powerful and responsible. (insert Uncle Ben quote here).

But players often see something new and cool in a new book and want to play it, and I just have to make an effort to temper assumptions that "just because it's in a book (even the PHB) does not mean its available in my game". If you build it, I get to review it and give it a stamp of approval before it comes into play. I'm usually pretty okay with whatever, but on occasion things just don't mix.

---
So my guideline is purely subjective. "How well will this content work for me at my table?" It's not used to make vast judgements on the content's quality, just if it works for me or not. Some does, some doesn't.

Right, this is more or less exactly what I wanted to say but didn't find the right words. Power level is almost entirely unimportant to me, whether or not a class or race is appropriate for the setting(s) I play in are. Doubly so since I'm somewhat restrictive with reflavoring when I DM.

[Waterdeep Merch]

First, I consider ways to optimize it. Then I compare those optimizations to situations they'd be good at in a game. Then I look at the levels I'd be doing these things at, and compare them directly to how I might accomplish that same thing with other builds. Often, this means I end up buffing things. Despite all the wailing and gnashing of the teeth, the only things I've ever found so broken that I had to nerf them were Sharpshooter, simulacrum, and coffelocks, and even these things are only necessarily broken because of how I run encounters (except for wish and simulacrum's interaction, that one I just had to ban). I have yet to run into anything outside the PHB that required nerfing in light of my standard houserules and standard gameplay, but I tend to create new sets of houserules for each campaign I run, so it's not out of the question that I run into problems for a future game that I just haven't had before.