D&D 5E The Door, Player Expectations, and why 5e can't unify the fanbase.

[JamesonCourage]

I would say that every class should excel at all three. I don't see a compelling reason otherwise. Why should some characters sit out during large chunks of the game?

This is what most of this thread is fighting about, and it was touched on earlier. Some players like this sort of play; they like shining above other players when their character hits just the right situation, even if it means sitting out other times. And, for my players, they don't like the idea of everyone being good at everything because it's "less realistic" (it breaks their sense of verisimilitude).

But, my group (including me) doesn't see the PCs as inherently special. They're not "the protagonists" and therefore subject to special rules when we play a fantasy game (this differs, obviously, when we use Mutants and Masterminds in one-shots to play as superheroes).

This is all a preference thing. That's all it is. You don't like the idea of players sitting out for long chunks of the game; my group prefers it, if it means that they can shine brightly over the other players (not just some, but brightly), and if this dynamic helps keep them immersed. But, again, it's just preference.

It's okay for you to not like that style, and it's okay for you to advocate for your preferred style, but there it is. Whether or not it convinces you to believe that I'm telling the truth, that's the way it is. As always, play what you like

 

[Fifth Element]

This is what most of this thread is fighting about, and it was touched on earlier. Some players like this sort of play; they like shining above other players when their character hits just the right situation, even if it means sitting out other times. And, for my players, they don't like the idea of everyone being good at everything because it's "less realistic" (it breaks their sense of verisimilitude).

To be fair, I don't think someone saying "classes should be good at all three pillars" has to be saying "all classes must be able to deal with every particular situation equally well."

Rather "on average, classes should be good at all three pillars." The wizard can shine sometimes, but so can the fighter. Preferably in approximately equal amounts overall.

 

[JamesonCourage]

To be fair, I don't think someone saying "classes should be good at all three pillars" has to be saying "all classes must be able to deal with every particular situation equally well."

I didn't say that, though. No need to get defensive; I like balance amongst the pillars to be the baseline, with optional rules in the PHB on how to change that.

Rather "on average, classes should be good at all three pillars." The wizard can shine sometimes, but so can the fighter. Preferably in approximately equal amounts overall.

Again, the "classes should be good at all three pillars" would go against the experience my players like (being able to shine brightly over the other players from time to time... this could include an entire pillar). It's just a preference thing. I was just explaining that to SKyOdin. As always, play what you like

 

[SKyOdin]

This is what most of this thread is fighting about, and it was touched on earlier. Some players like this sort of play; they like shining above other players when their character hits just the right situation, even if it means sitting out other times. And, for my players, they don't like the idea of everyone being good at everything because it's "less realistic" (it breaks their sense of verisimilitude).

The problem is that D&D hasn't been very good at even letting each class stand out at its right time. The biggest problem with the imbalance of previous editions is that some classes were the best at every situation, while other classes couldn't contribute to any situation. People say that the fighter should be the best at combat, but it has been utterly awful at combat in some editions, with nothing else to fall back on.

Furthermore, I think trying to design the game around a rotating spotlight based on class, it requires making some rather huge assumptions about how people play their games. These assumptions include things like party composition and the kinds of challenge the party will face. Such a game would not be good at handling games outside of those specific assumptions.

Since I like D&D campaigns that use very different assumptions than the "default" of fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric going through dungeons, rotating spotlight balance would probably be pretty bad for my needs.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes, that's exactly what we're talking about.

Or not. Classes can be good at combat, but in completely different ways. Wizards and fighters, for instance. One blows bunches of things up from a distance, while the other smacks them in the face. Hard. If you think the wizard and fighter are the same in combat, because both are good at it, I don't know what to say.

Similarly, classes can be good at exploration in different ways, and good at interaction in different ways.

But it IS!

A fighter smacks you with a longsword and does 1d8+4 damage.
A cleric calls down holy light and does 2d6+2 damage.
A wizard throws a bolt of lightning which does 3d4+2 damage
A rogue uses a sly trick with his dagger and hits for 1d4+4 +1d6 SA damage.

Moral of the story: Everyone does some amount of damage, up to 12 damage. Everything else is fluff (and some sly math trick) to look different. That's the same class, with different names. They're all doing the same thing in combat that round.

I don't want my fighter sneaking like a rogue, talking like a bard, or flying like a wizard. I don't care if he does it with Machismo, Grit, Magic, or Plot Convenience.

 

[Remathilis]

Because "everyone is able to contribute" is not the same thing as "everyone does the same stuff". In combat, fighters mix it up in melee, while wizards blast stuff with fireballs.

When doing exploration, the fighter climbs, dives underwater, and moves boulders out of the way. The wizard uses magic to dowse things, create magic lights, and creates magic barriers to ward off the elements.

For interaction, the fighter uses his social skills and contacts to gather information, while the wizard uses magic to probe people's minds.

Or whatever. There is plenty of room to give characters various different tools and mechanics to approach these general different situations.

Heck, we don't even need to break this stuff up along class lines. Elements such as exploration or interaction could potentially be handled by character choices other than class. As long as every player character can contribute on all three categories, the game will work right.

And Fighters in 3e and earlier can't climb, swim, move boulders, or gather information?

 

[SKyOdin]

But it IS!

A fighter smacks you with a longsword and does 1d8+4 damage.
A cleric calls down holy light and does 2d6+2 damage.
A wizard throws a bolt of lightning which does 3d4+2 damage
A rogue uses a sly trick with his dagger and hits for 1d4+4 +1d6 SA damage.

Moral of the story: Everyone does some amount of damage, up to 12 damage. Everything else is fluff (and some sly math trick) to look different. That's the same class, with different names. They're all doing the same thing in combat that round.

I don't want my fighter sneaking like a rogue, talking like a bard, or flying like a wizard. I don't care if he does it with Machismo, Grit, Magic, or Plot Convenience.

The fighter blocks the opponent's advance, preventing it from reaching the wizard and cleric.
The rogue steathfully out-maneuvers the enemy, striking at the caster lurking behind the front-lines
The wizard calls down magical fire, annihilating the lesser mooks in one fell swoop.
The cleric calls down a divine light to heal his allies wounds.

There is a lot more to combat than just how much damage you do.

 

[SKyOdin]

And Fighters in 3e and earlier can't climb, swim, move boulders, or gather information?

Not nearly as well as anyone else on the team. A 3E wizard could render all of those things moot with a couple spells.

You are missing the point. The point is that it is possible for PCs to contribute to challenges in different ways. Multiple characters being able to contribute is not the same thing as those characters being the same.

Are you intentionally trying to muddle things and deflect the line of discussion away from the point?

 

[JamesonCourage]

The problem is that D&D hasn't been very good at even letting each class stand out at its right time. The biggest problem with the imbalance of previous editions is that some classes were the best at every situation, while other classes couldn't contribute to any situation. People say that the fighter should be the best at combat, but it has been utterly awful at combat in some editions, with nothing else to fall back on.

Even if that's true, that doesn't invalidate people advocating this approach. It just means that it needs to be done well.

Furthermore, I think trying to design the game around a rotating spotlight based on class, it requires making some rather huge assumptions about how people play their games. These assumptions include things like party composition and the kinds of challenge the party will face. Such a game would not be good at handling games outside of those specific assumptions.

Just like making everyone excel in all three pillars makes pretty big assumptions about play style. That's why I'm a fan of "everyone is 3/3/3 in the pillars; and, here's how you tweak that."

Since I like D&D campaigns that use very different assumptions than the "default" of fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric going through dungeons, rotating spotlight balance would probably be pretty bad for my needs.

So, advocate for your view. Say what you want. I get it. I was letting you know why people like something you don't, since you expressed you didn't see any reason for it to be that way. I'm just explaining preference. As always, play what you like

 

[Fifth Element]

I didn't say that, though. No need to get defensive; I like balance amongst the pillars to be the baseline, with optional rules in the PHB on how to change that.

Didn't say you said that. No need to get defensive.

Just pointing it out to others who might be reading.

A fighter smacks you with a longsword and does 1d8+4 damage.
A cleric calls down holy light and does 2d6+2 damage.
A wizard throws a bolt of lightning which does 3d4+2 damage
A rogue uses a sly trick with his dagger and hits for 1d4+4 +1d6 SA damage.

Ironically, the fighter even gets shortchanged in your made-up example. He can only do 12 damage when everyone else can do 14...

They're all doing the same thing in combat that round.

Whoops. There's a kicker right there. So classes are judged identical based on what they did this round? Really?

Next round the wizard hurls a fireball a hundred feet away and incinerates 14 goblins, the fighter bull rushes an ogre over a cliff, the cleric brings a character back from near-death with a word, and the rogue...wait, the rogue was right there! I'm sure I saw him. Where did he go? Urk!

I don't want my fighter sneaking like a rogue, talking like a bard, or flying like a wizard.

No one's suggesting that he should. The argument is that the fighter should have some means to do more than just smack people in the face. Don't restrict him to the combat pillar.

You're doing a fine job of misrepresenting the arguments, but it doesn't get us very far.