D&D beyond drops, pact seeker

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

The fire & poison resistances are powerful, but, again, not everything has to be "balanced" to the least combat-centric option:Crafter in particular gets a bad rap because, from my experience, crafting is usually handwaved, made into an RP-only moment, or left to artificers, rather than played RAW.

"Not everything has to be 'balanced'" shows disregard for fellow players.

As for Crafter, as a crafter spanning many editions, Crafter is a terrible feat; it doesn't help with crafting. It helps you jury-rig junk that falls apart and haggle for a discount on items. Whether you handwave crafting or not, Crafter doesn't help. The rap is deserved. Three artisan's tool proficiencies are not sufficient to be considered helping you craft.

But regardless, even the best of the Origin Feats would not be a great comparison as these are not Origin Feats, but normal feats that can be gained through a Background. For 5.24e, we only have the Dragonmark feat chain which is often described as powerful but offset by being tied to a specific setting. I would argue that these are significantly stronger than the Dragonmarks with no such "balancer". Between Devil's Flesh and Infernal Pact, a Warlock can skip Devil's Sight and Armor of Shadows, taking different Invocations without really sacrificing anything, instead also picking up two of the best damage resistances and a skill proficiency.

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

Also:Talk of "balance" reminds me of the worst of post-Street Fighter II "tier" arguments spilling into every form of media's culture.

"Balance" keeps the game fun by reducing the chance that you will come to the table feeling like you made the wrong choices when creating or advancing your character. It helps reduce the chances, as a DM, that an encounter is harder or easier than expected. Though, I rarely worry about easier encounters as long as it carries enough tension.

D&D is a game that defaults to combat resolutions. Published adventures tend to have less support for social resolutions. If attempting social resolutions fail, often combat is a backup option or sometimes a consequence. Infernal Pact makes you better in combat and in (specific) social situations.

Yes, as a DM, I can counter it, but to evaluate the experience across tables, published adventures and adventurer's league are the best measure. Everything cannot be perfectly balanced, but that is a far cry from ignoring it.

 The idea of balance requires something to be balanced to.

But here's my question:

What does the above-table, out-of-universe meta concept of "balance" have anything to do with settings like the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, Krynn, Ravenloft, or other settings a character lives in? Do people pick what type of Cleric they are based on what will increase their XP? Do sorcerers get to pick their innate power based on what will get them to their next milestone?

This is why I explicitly ban metagamey reasons for making nonsensical characters in a realm I run, & emphasize backstories that make sense.

Or else you end up with Mizzmages.

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

The idea of balance requires something to be balanced to.

But here's my question:

What does the above-table, out-of-universe meta concept of "balance" have anything to do with settings like the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, Krynn, Ravenloft, or other settings a character lives in? Do people pick what type of Cleric they are based on what will increase their XP? Do sorcerers get to pick their innate power based on what will get them to their next milestone?

This is a false premise. The fluff underlying the mechanics has no bearing on the efficacy of the mechanics and those mechanics must stand on their own, whether they are used within an official setting or a homebrew. The true tests of balance are: Is this option objectively better than others of its kind? Infernal Pact and Devil's Flesh are definitely better than their peers.

I just finished Season 1 of Rising of the Shield Hero. It's an Isekai setting where the world inhabitants are aware of mechanics of the world and make upgrade choices based on those mechanics and their own synergies. Does that change the standard of balance? No, because the mechanics should be relatively balanced in their own right. Even within the core cosmology, the notion of option being restricted by setting is rather silly since Sigil links them all and thus crossover is not only reasonable, but already canon (at least in terms of other settings entering a Planescape setting).

Even in modern life, there are parallels. Are you likely to pursue a bachelor's degree in math if you've historically struggled with math? When you are selecting your major and minor as well as the classes that make up the degree, you will choose based on your own strengths and their internal synergy. When looking for a career, you will do something similar. The mechanics of you and your life are not laid out in a rulebook and on a character sheet (wouldn't that be nice?), but people will generally make decisions based on what they can infer about the mechanics of the game of life.

So, yeah, in the US, with poor pay and conditions, few people pursue teaching and instead take up another profession. Even those that do get certified for it will sometimes take a second job or just work in a different field altogether. In the mechanics of the real world, it is a weak path. It is a necessary and undervalued path, but it doesn't give you solid pay, social standing, or anything like that. Their lives will be hard without a partner providing a substantial second income. Even if the residents of Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Sigil, the Rock of Bral, Hombrewopolis 1942, or countless other settings are not directly aware of the mechanics of the game, they will be aware to degree and capable of making "metagamey" decisions, just like you probably have done with your career/life and I have.

However, just like D&D is not a physics simulator, it's not a socioeconomic simulator. It's not a game where we are playing out the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. We are not creating a historical simulation of the feudal era where the third child is given to the church regardless of their own inclinations. The worlds of D&D are very different, from both real world history and each other. The mechanics must stand on their own and be evaluated for balance independent of setting. The mechanics must strive to minimize "trap options" as well as options that are overwhelmingly good. D&D's base goal is to create a cooperative story where everyone shines equally. The game should not become "The Pact Seeker and their companions" or "The Pact Seeker Pack".

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

Or else you end up with Mizzmages.

You'll have Mizzmages regardless. They'll just have resistance to Fire and Poison, see in magical darkness, and have proficiency in Deception.

Just my two coppers (and I acknowledge the mechanical imbalance of the feat and agree its very strong), but I think the balance comes into the narrative consequences of making the pact. Like, yeah, you can have this at level 1, but it's literally a deal with a devil (or demon/other fiend). There will absolutely be bad stuff happening for anyone that takes that feat at my table. Not as punishment, but as payment. Someone's soul is going to the Nine Hells for a feat this good, and that toll would be forfeit immediately. You're losing a loved one or a talent or a beloved attribute (beauty maybe?)

Now should I, as a DM, have to do that for an Origin Feat? Probably not. But I like having the option to reward my player with strong mechanics if they're willing to accept the narrative consequences. Would the minmaxer at my table care if his character was ugly or he lost an imaginary sibling to get more power? Probably not. But I might also not let that person take this feat or try to find a way to work out with them how to keep them at the same power level as the rest of party. All-in-all, it's on me as a DM what I allow at the table, regardless what WotC puts out.

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

Are you likely to pursue a bachelor's degree in math if you've historically struggled with math? When you are selecting your major and minor as well as the classes that make up the degree, you will choose based on your own strengths and their internal synergy. When looking for a career, you will do something similar.

People make what you would apparently consider "sub-optimal" choices -- both in real life and in D&D -- all the time. Just because you would only select a major or a minor that directly benefits what you see as your future career and plays to your strengths does not mean other people would make the same choices, nor are they "wrong" for doing so

The exact same dynamic is in play in character creation. Personally, I would never even take Pact Seeker as a background unless it made sense for the story I wanted to tell with a character -- and frankly, if I did take it it wouldn't be on a warlock, because the class itself already covers that story element. I would only consider Pact Seeker for a non-warlock who for whatever reason is dabbling in cutting deals with sketchy entities, and at that point, whether I went fey or infernal would depend on the character's story, not the mechanics each path offers

(By the way, if you want to play in a campaign where all the players are building super-optimized characters, and you all end up with Infernal Pacts, good luck with that. I would expect the DM to respond accordingly to a party who all have fire and poison damage resistances by basically never attacking them with fire or poison damage. So how "optimal" is it going to end up being, really?)

That's the fundamental flaw with all white-room discussions of what's "optimal" and "overpowered" and whatnot. They don't allow for any agency from the DM, or indeed from other players

There's no meta in D&D. Stop looking for it. It doesn't exist, because the point of D&D isn't to beat D&D

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

Are you likely to pursue a bachelor's degree in math if you've historically struggled with math? When you are selecting your major and minor as well as the classes that make up the degree, you will choose based on your own strengths and their internal synergy. When looking for a career, you will do something similar.

People make what you would apparently consider "sub-optimal" choices -- both in real life and in D&D -- all the time. Just because you would only select a major or a minor that directly benefits what you see as your future career and plays to your strengths does not mean other people would make the same choices, nor are they "wrong" for doing so

Of course they do. That's not the point of the statement. The point was that people have an indirect awareness of what you could call the mechanics of our world and make decisions based on them. In an RPG setting, that is considered metagaming. In an RPG, some people claim taking the hard route, like a low Int Wizard creates a better experience. In real life, people rarely choose the hard route to take the hard route. They may choose public school teaching, for example, because they seek to make a difference.

My point was that metagaming backgrounds is a false concept. People do make choices based on what the perceived optimal path is and blocking players from certain combinations is silly. 

Quote from AntonSirius >>

That's the fundamental flaw with all white-room discussions of what's "optimal" and "overpowered" and whatnot. They don't allow for any agency from the DM, or indeed from other players

That doesn't make any sense. "The DM will handle it" or "the players will sort it out" should never be carte blanche to ignore game balance.

A feat should be roughly the same strength as another feat with equivalent requirements. A feat that synergizes well with a few combinations is healthy. A feat that synergizes with none can be poor design or not depending on the feat. A feat that is universally beneficial is overpowered.

As the first D&D Beyond Drop, this may be a fluke of bad design. It is not a pattern... yet. It is still a subscriber only, digital only product that is significantly stronger than other published features. If the quality improves, I may purchase a hardcopy collection from a local brick and mortar, but never a digital copy, hopefully by then, they'll errata it, but most likely no errata or physical copy will ever be seen. Most likely, more busted options will continue to be "Dropped". 

Quote from AntonSirius >>

 

People make what you would apparently consider "sub-optimal" choices -- both in real life and in D&D -- all the time. Just because you would only select a major or a minor that directly benefits what you see as your future career and plays to your strengths does not mean other people would make the same choices, nor are they "wrong" for doing so

The exact same dynamic is in play in character creation. Personally, I would never even take Pact Seeker as a background unless it made sense for the story I wanted to tell with a character -- and frankly, if I did take it it wouldn't be on a warlock, because the class itself already covers that story element. I would only consider Pact Seeker for a non-warlock who for whatever reason is dabbling in cutting deals with sketchy entities, and at that point, whether I went fey or infernal would depend on the character's story, not the mechanics each path offers

(By the way, if you want to play in a campaign where all the players are building super-optimized characters, and you all end up with Infernal Pacts, good luck with that. I would expect the DM to respond accordingly to a party who all have fire and poison damage resistances by basically never attacking them with fire or poison damage. So how "optimal" is it going to end up being, really?)

That's the fundamental flaw with all white-room discussions of what's "optimal" and "overpowered" and whatnot. They don't allow for any agency from the DM, or indeed from other players

There's no meta in D&D. Stop looking for it. It doesn't exist, because the point of D&D isn't to beat D&D

 While you're correct, there are levels of unbalance that overwhelm the basic truth, especially in a combat-centric game like D&D. If one player is significantly more effective in a fight, many others will feel like they're not contributing. Similarly, if one choice gives you so much more stuff, it can feel like you're intentionally handicapping yourself when you take others.

Infernal pact doesn't reach the level of the former, but it certainly manages the latter. Particularly if you're taking Fey pact, which is reasonably in line with origin feats, you're going to be looking at infernal pact and saying "what the hell?"

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

That doesn't make any sense. "The DM will handle it" or "the players will sort it out" should never be carte blanche to ignore game balance.

 

Discussions of game balance also shouldn't ignore how people actually play the game in real life

Quote from jl8e >>

While you're correct, there are levels of unbalance that overwhelm the basic truth, especially in a combat-centric game like D&D. If one player is significantly more effective in a fight, many others will feel like they're not contributing. Similarly, if one choice gives you so much more stuff, it can feel like you're intentionally handicapping yourself when you take others.

Infernal pact doesn't reach the level of the former, but it certainly manages the latter. Particularly if you're taking Fey pact, which is reasonably in line with origin feats, you're going to be looking at infernal pact and saying "what the hell?"

This was my point though. If you're playing in a healthy campaign (i.e. all the players and DM have a reasonably comparable definition of how to have fun playing D&D) where story is far less important than combat mechanics, to the point that you take Infernal Pact just for the goodies, then most/all of the rest of the party probably will too if they all think it's that OP. And then the DM will create appropriate challenges for that party, just like every DM tries to do for every party

If you're taking Fey Pact over Infernal Pact primarily for story reasons, it having less combat utility doesn't much matter, because that's not why you're taking it. So I'm at a loss to figure out who's actually going to feel cheated by their choice

(To be clear, I don't think much of the whole set of feats, but that's got less to do with balance issues and more to do with the fact that as a DM I don't want cookie-cutter feats for making pacts, I'd want to homebrew/tailor something specific to that character and patron.)