There are a lot of questions always flying around in the community about the balance of third party and homebrew options. Unfortunately, it isn't always obvious how to make this judgement and how to evaluate the options. In this article, we're going to look at some strategies for making the evaluation in 5E. For a light example of this analysis, take a look at my thoughts on fixing the Ranger Beastmaster archetype in 5E.
The first thing to keep in mind, is that a well balanced option should be neither clearly better or worse than existing options in order to be balanced. Unfortunately, this kind of comparison has to look at a lot of different aspects and try to compare them as a whole. Some of these aspects are easily quantifiable. Some of these aspects are hard to measure. Our first step is to try to get things into the same language.
Combat effectiveness is a definite consideration. A PC during combat causes damage against foes while taking damage from foes. Improving performance of a PC can be done by increasing the probability of a hit, increasing the amount of damage for a hit, or by increasing the number of attacks. It can also be done by decreasing the probability or number of hits against the PC or by decreasing the damage against the PC. AC, attack bonus, and damage resistance are all straight-forward effects. Secondary effects, like the rogue's cunning action, also play in by allowing the PC to move out of danger.
Non-combat effectiveness and role-play flavor are also key evaluation points, though typically these are less weighted than combat effectiveness. The farther away we get from the crunch of combat and mechanics, the less weight the enhancements seem to carry.
For comparison, we need to get everything into the most common form. Things that replicate spell effects, list the spell and effective level. Things that replicate magical item effects, list them as a magical item and its rarity. Attack and AC points are incremented in 5% effects for damage production and damage reduction. We know from fighting styles the relative weighting of AC, damage, and attack bonus: fighting style gives +2 to attacks (+10% chance to hit), +2 to damage, but only +1 to AC (5% less chance to hit). As you reduce to a common form, start lining up comparison between what you have as a homebrew / third party option and the best first party comparable. Start figuring which is better in each of the categories that applies. If all of the comparisons favor one of the other, it points to a balance problem.
Classes have the added complication of requiring balance at each level. This isn't always perfect. For example, the druid has a couple of know levels where it is very powerful, but this rolls off. To do a good comparison, we need to look at the comparison at each level as the class builds.
Keep in mind that mechanics often have layers of equivalency. For example, comparing cantrips, we can see that different types of damage are weighted at different levels. Fire, acid, cold, and lightning damage all have different ranges and damage dice. Some have advantage under certain conditions. Some have additional effects. Similar levels exist for resistance and immunity, where some are easy to get, and some are impossible to get. Similarly, some are very useful, and some are almost never useful. When we do our comparison we need to take all of this into account.
When evaluating archetypes, compare against all available archetypes for a class, noting commonality and differences. Where something falls out of the normal pattern, throw up a red flag. Pay attention to attributes like how many enemies or allies are affected, how long the effect lasts, and what kind of action is required. A combination of several changes from the norm all in the better direction usually indicates an overpowered design.
In the end, all of these comparisons are all about asking the simple question: Is this homebrew / third party element something that is always better or worse than the most comparable thing to it in the first party content? Once we answer that question, we are done.
Having just a single person do this analysis isn't perfect. The perception of the content is just as important as the reality. To really get it right, we also need to have multiple people do the comparison and argue it out. Often by changing the method of comparison, we change the result, so multiple methods should be considered.
In the end, the gold standard is the play test. Before you declare a class, feat, feature, or other game content fair and balanced, consider running it for a while and adjusting as needed. This probationary period can work wonders and get you to your final goal of a fun new game addition.
The first thing to keep in mind, is that a well balanced option should be neither clearly better or worse than existing options in order to be balanced. Unfortunately, this kind of comparison has to look at a lot of different aspects and try to compare them as a whole. Some of these aspects are easily quantifiable. Some of these aspects are hard to measure. Our first step is to try to get things into the same language.
Combat effectiveness is a definite consideration. A PC during combat causes damage against foes while taking damage from foes. Improving performance of a PC can be done by increasing the probability of a hit, increasing the amount of damage for a hit, or by increasing the number of attacks. It can also be done by decreasing the probability or number of hits against the PC or by decreasing the damage against the PC. AC, attack bonus, and damage resistance are all straight-forward effects. Secondary effects, like the rogue's cunning action, also play in by allowing the PC to move out of danger.
Non-combat effectiveness and role-play flavor are also key evaluation points, though typically these are less weighted than combat effectiveness. The farther away we get from the crunch of combat and mechanics, the less weight the enhancements seem to carry.
For comparison, we need to get everything into the most common form. Things that replicate spell effects, list the spell and effective level. Things that replicate magical item effects, list them as a magical item and its rarity. Attack and AC points are incremented in 5% effects for damage production and damage reduction. We know from fighting styles the relative weighting of AC, damage, and attack bonus: fighting style gives +2 to attacks (+10% chance to hit), +2 to damage, but only +1 to AC (5% less chance to hit). As you reduce to a common form, start lining up comparison between what you have as a homebrew / third party option and the best first party comparable. Start figuring which is better in each of the categories that applies. If all of the comparisons favor one of the other, it points to a balance problem.
Classes have the added complication of requiring balance at each level. This isn't always perfect. For example, the druid has a couple of know levels where it is very powerful, but this rolls off. To do a good comparison, we need to look at the comparison at each level as the class builds.
Keep in mind that mechanics often have layers of equivalency. For example, comparing cantrips, we can see that different types of damage are weighted at different levels. Fire, acid, cold, and lightning damage all have different ranges and damage dice. Some have advantage under certain conditions. Some have additional effects. Similar levels exist for resistance and immunity, where some are easy to get, and some are impossible to get. Similarly, some are very useful, and some are almost never useful. When we do our comparison we need to take all of this into account.
When evaluating archetypes, compare against all available archetypes for a class, noting commonality and differences. Where something falls out of the normal pattern, throw up a red flag. Pay attention to attributes like how many enemies or allies are affected, how long the effect lasts, and what kind of action is required. A combination of several changes from the norm all in the better direction usually indicates an overpowered design.
In the end, all of these comparisons are all about asking the simple question: Is this homebrew / third party element something that is always better or worse than the most comparable thing to it in the first party content? Once we answer that question, we are done.
Having just a single person do this analysis isn't perfect. The perception of the content is just as important as the reality. To really get it right, we also need to have multiple people do the comparison and argue it out. Often by changing the method of comparison, we change the result, so multiple methods should be considered.
In the end, the gold standard is the play test. Before you declare a class, feat, feature, or other game content fair and balanced, consider running it for a while and adjusting as needed. This probationary period can work wonders and get you to your final goal of a fun new game addition.
Comments
Post a Comment