D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[Ahnehnois]

And again we come back to my bias that we should not have “suboptimal character choices”,

Which is a really strange bias. And is very specific, restrictive, and exclusionary. And doesn't really follow from any principle or precedent that I'm aware of.

but differing areas of expertise which solve challenges in different ways, making a variety of characters desirable, not just a necessary evil forced upon the guy who needs to play the comic relief sidekick so that, on those rare occasions his talents become useful, we’ll have him around.

A pretty harsh characterization. I don't know a lot of D&D characters that fit it. Again, a bard can be somewhere in between a sidekick and the main combatant.

I'm also sensing an anti-sidekick bias. There's nothing wrong with being one.

Perhaps we should look to a campaign of dungeon exploration. Combat encounters will be rare, and exceptionally lethal. The best prospect for survival is researching the histories of these places, understanding their arcane lore, stealth and trap disarming, negotiation and other interactions (bluff, riddle contests, etc.). The main purpose of the Barbarian, of course, will be when our abilities in these other areas fail us – he will have enough hp to slow the deadly enemies down for two or three rounds, buying the rest of us time to escape. Tough guys are a dime a dozen, so we need to preserve our skilled, knowledgeable characters!

Sure. If you run a campaign that favors the bard, the bard becomes more useful. No issues there.

Again, if I were to accept the Barbarian as “the best choice” for a character class, my inclination would be to depower him so he matches the level of the other classes. How would you propose we level the playing field in this regard?

I wouldn't. Perhaps the most overpowered PC I ever saw was a barbarian. Or so I thought. Then other characters naturally took over the spotlight, and then others. The beauty of D&D is that it's very difficult to break.

I'm inclined to err on the side of "let the player play their cool and possibly unbalanced class" as opposed to "let me tell the player that their character is too powerful and compromise the character in some way in the name of balance". Case in point:
One of the really meaningful changes from 2e to 3e is the cleric. It goes from 7 spell levels to 9, picks up spontaneous healing and various useful combat capabilities, while losing some restrictions (all changes made in the name of creating an "equally viable character" out of a rather misguided belief that divine casters were not good enough). But I let people play them, and they play fine. No big deal. Does the 3e cleric need a downgrade? Probably. But only because it got an upgrade in the name of "balance" that it didn't need.

I remain of the view that there is no reason physical might should equate to character viability.

No it shouldn't. Barbarians are defined not solely by physical might, but also by prowess and survival skill and probably other things. A character built solely around physical might probably shouldn't be all that great.

 

[N'raac]

If there's a class that says "Strength is important for this weapon-using class," and a race that gives +2 Strength, and a race that gives 0 Strength and can't use any good weapons, that's not a trap choice. No one is going to accidentally make a halfling fighter and then wonder why it's not as good as a half-orc.

Strength can be important without being all-important. The Halfling simply needs to focus on skills, strategies and tactics other than "big hulking melee brute". Several exist. He makes an excellent ranged combatant. His DEX and size combine to provide an AC advantage. As a riding combatant, he can ride many creatures that can make their way around a dungeon environment, an option closed to the much larger half orc.

That half orc, dull witted and lacking any leadership skills, may be a great thug or a brute, but he does not fit the mold of "leader of men" nor "brilliant tactician", also fine roles for a fighter type.

I guess now I'm biased towards seeing that rationale as BS. If there was a good in-game justification for why a new character class should be better at magic than the existing wizard or better at fighting then the existing fighter, than the mechanics should reflect that. For example, the whole FR Spellfire business. This isn't such a case.

Who said "better at magic"? He's better at practical magic - spellcasting. He's also hideously unbalanced - no one is seriously arguing he should be added to the game. But neither do I perceive any benefit to having a similar power spread between any character classes. If the Bard is a "suboptimal choice" and the Barbarian a "superior choice", that is a failure in the design of the game. They should be more or less equal choices, as the game plays out. The Barbarian will be a clear superior in some situations, and the Bard in others. Those situations should balance out, not merely allow the Bard an occasional glimpse at the glory the Barbarian (or some other class) routinely basks in.

Why? Relative equal viability is simply a postulate in this whole argument. I see no reason why all character types need to meet that standard, and I don't see that anything is lost if they don't, other than some nebulous and arbitrary construct of "balance". If I'm sitting down and making a bard (or anything), making him of "relative equal viability" to some other disparate concept isn't really a consideration. The character the best it can be; such comparisons are marginally relevant at best.

Then why do you have an objection to a class which has more spellcasting ability, but less finesse, than a Wizard? Tell you what - we'll remove all the Knowledge skills from the SpellSage's class list - after all, he never learned those subtle areas. All he's worried about is practical casting. We'll remove Scribe Scroll and Familiar, too - these are too theoretical. He's just the best that he can be in casting spells. That's all he's good at.

Other than "relative equal viability" to some other concept, such as one or more other character classes, what is the reason for this very focused, pragmatic spellcaster to be inappropriate? What is lost, other than some nebulous and arbitrary construct of "balance"?

Most players are perfectly capable of enjoying characters that are not relatively equal

I have never seen a player set out to play a sidekick who will have limited or no impact on the game as compared to the other players' characters. Useful in different ways, and different circumstances, sure, but not "I'll play Useless the Sidekick" YMMV

Some time above you mentioned a party made up of martial/melee characters. To me, that suggests your game style favours such characters, your players realize this and they have designed characters which will be favoured by that game style. How many of them have selected a Bard? If any, has this been after several months playing in your game, after becoming used to the fact you consider them a "silly, suboptimal" concept, or a character brought in who was not allowed to serve a useful purpose, and was therefore retired or killed off?

most stories rely on characters that are not

Most stories do not have players running a character each. RPG's are a team pastime, and best simulate the source material with a variety of characters with different skills and abilities, strengths and weaknesses - source material where the characters tend to be relative equals. But if you truly favour the disparate power approach, consider offering the players the option of selecting Martial characters (BAB +1/level and d10+ HD) who are 1st level, quasi martial characters (BAB 3/4; d8 HD) of 2nd level, non-martial characters (all others) of 3rd level or "silly concept" characters (bards only from what I see, but add any others you perceive as clearly suboptimal - maybe Halfling fighters) of 4th level. See how many choose the clearly weaker - that is, suboptimal - character options...no advance consultation, just pick what kind of character you will play

all versions of D&D have characters that are not. I never understood where this mystical standard arose from.

This "mystical standard" goes a long way to explaining the drift from random rolls to character design, actually. No one gets an advantage due to luck of the dice, so the characters are more equal. Every redesign has touted better balance, back to reducing the power of many standard spell choices in moving from 1e to 2e - if there were no demand for balance, then this would logically not be highlighted in each and every edition change (or even errata). If you and your players are not looking to run more or less balanced characters, I suggest it is your group which is unusual, not those who are seeking a balance between various races, classes, etc.

 

[N'raac]

Which is a really strange bias. And is very specific, restrictive, and exclusionary. And doesn't really follow from any principle or precedent that I'm aware of.

I fear we are simply talking past one another. I find having one clear, best choice for each character design decision to be far more "specific, restrictive, and exclusionary" than to have choices that make characters meaningfully different, providing an array of varying strengths and weaknesses which, over time, play out to relative equality of contribution. And, as I said above, pretty much every edition change, and many errata/rules alterations, are aimed at enhancing that balance, in my experience. For someone who claims to be widely read about the hobby, you can't be paying much attention if you have overlooked this.

A pretty harsh characterization.

So is dismissing a class as "a silly concept".

I don't know a lot of D&D characters that fit it. Again, a bard can be somewhere in between a sidekick and the main combatant.

You keep coming back to "combatant" where I use "contributor". This again seems to suggest you prioritize melee combat as by far the most important aspect of the game. This also explains a party made up entirely of martial characters - since melee combat is the common path to success, the players gravitate to characters skilled in melee combat.

If the game features a wide array of challenges, not all of which can be resolved by dealing damage, many of which are best resolved in other ways but could be resolved by killing whatever stands in your path, others which could be resolved equally effectively by combat or by some other approach, and still others for which combat is the only viable approach, then it is a much richer game, and it provides room for the melee brute (who shines when combat is the best, or only, option), the trickster/negotiator, the spellcaster, the knowledgeable sage and an array of other possible character concepts to each shine in their own areas of expertise.

I'm also sensing an anti-sidekick bias. There's nothing wrong with being one.

Poll your players and see if they feel the same way, or if they want characters capable of holding the spotlight. By the way, I would not classify a character whose main contributions are bolstering and enhancing their teammates as "a sidekick", nor would I consider a character who shines out of combat, solving meaningful challenges through knowledge, expertise, skill or negotiation to be a sidekick. A sidekick is a character who is of clearly lesser importance, utility and value than the main protagonist(s). Their contributions are routinely overshadowed by those of the other characters, not just useful in different types of challenges.

From Wikipedia, "A sidekick is a close companion who is generally regarded as subordinate to the one he accompanies. Some well-known fictional sidekicks are Don Quixote's Sancho Panza, Sherlock Holmes' Doctor Watson, The Lone Ranger's Tonto, The Green Hornet's Kato, Munna Bhai's Circuit, Batman's Robin and Hercule Poirot's Hastings. Annabeth Chase is nobody's sidekick."

Sure. If you run a campaign that favors the bard, the bard becomes more useful. No issues there.

I wouldn't say that campaign favours the Bard so much as it disfavours the melee combatant classes.

It is certainly possible to build an unbalanced campaign. This might be intentional (this campaign will focus around gladiatorial pit combat, so build characters accordingly), or an unconscious bias (antagonists are always designed so they must be fought - negotiation, stealth, etc. never resolve the challenge in the long term; opponents are generally resistant to magic, immune to sneak attacks, and encountered in close range, so melee thrives; NPC's are strong willed and never influenced by interaction skills or abilities; or the converse, everything is far more powerful than the PC's, so combat is a death sentence). The key difference between intentional and unconscious, to me, is that the GM makes his design clear and suggests appropriate characters in the former case. In the latter, the players fairly quickly figure out that some character choices are ineffective, and gravitate away from them - often with the conclusion that such choices are underpowered in general, not just when the game is designed to be unfriendly to them.

I wouldn't. Perhaps the most overpowered PC I ever saw was a barbarian. Or so I thought. Then other characters naturally took over the spotlight, and then others. The beauty of D&D is that it's very difficult to break.

If that is the case, then none of the character choices would be "suboptimal". They would each have their turn in the spotlight. That's not what you're telling me is the Bard's situation, nor that of the Halfling fighter. You have repeatedly stated these will both be comparative weaklings when compared to the half orc barbarian.

I'm inclined to err on the side of "let the player play their cool and possibly unbalanced class" as opposed to "let me tell the player that their character is too powerful and compromise the character in some way in the name of balance".

And yet you are clearly opposed to my SpellSage...

Case in point:
One of the really meaningful changes from 2e to 3e is the cleric. It goes from 7 spell levels to 9, picks up spontaneous healing and various useful combat capabilities, while losing some restrictions (all changes made in the name of creating an "equally viable character" out of a rather misguided belief that divine casters were not good enough). But I let people play them, and they play fine. No big deal. Does the 3e cleric need a downgrade? Probably. But only because it got an upgrade in the name of "balance" that it didn't need.

Again, a lot depends on campaign style. Our group has never set out to break the game, and so the game is not broken. I prefer the 3e/3.5/PF model of the cleric to the "SOMEONE has to play the healer while the rest of us grab the glory" sidekick model we had in the past. I find Pathfinder brought the classes a lot closer together by beefing up everybody, but some classes more than others. It also provided a lot more choice for most classes, such that characters can be better customized (among other things) to compete in the environment set by the GM, whether intentionally or unconsciously.

No it shouldn't. Barbarians are defined not solely by physical might, but also by prowess and survival skill and probably other things. A character built solely around physical might probably shouldn't be all that great.

Those 2 or 3 skill points per level after you dump INT and select a half orc leave pretty limited choices for skills. An extra hp per level is nice, but it largely offsets the reduced AC of Rage and armor restrictions. I have a 3.5 half-orc barbarian who started with a 20 STR. He's very powerful in combat, and he leaves the talking and the thinking to others much more capable than himself in those areas (likely including his horse...). That doesn't relegate any teammates to sidekick status, and it doesn't even make him universally "the best combatant". He gets his turn in - and out - of the spotlight.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Poll your players and see if they feel the same way, or if they want characters capable of holding the spotlight.

To a man (or woman) they do. They don't care about holding the spotlight, they cadre a lot less about balance than I do as the DM, and they often explicitly like to play a "support character". If one character in the group is more powerful than the others, it's usually because the other players wanted it to be that way. Playing a powerful character is a responsibility that many people would rather not have during their recreational gaming.

All part of the game.

And, while we're on the topic, the last time a player did play a bard, the rest of them mocked him incessantly for it, before ever seeing the mechanics. Whereas when a different player played a barbarian that completely took over the game for a while, they cheered him on and didn't complain about spotlights and balance.

 

[N'raac]

To a man (or woman) they do. They don't care about holding the spotlight, they cadre a lot less about balance than I do as the DM, and they often explicitly like to play a "support character".

This is not the same as a sidekick. A support character pulls their weight by making other characters more powerful. That Bard adding +2 to everyone's attack and damage rolls can be very valuable regardless of whether he ever swings his own weapon. My fairly low-level Witch carries a weapon, but his role has been designed to support other characters in combat through buffing and de-buffing abilities. I believe he has inflicted damage perhaps twice from L1 to L4, but his abilities have in no way been unimportant to the game, combat or non-combat.

And, while we're on the topic, the last time a player did play a bard, the rest of them mocked him incessantly for it, before ever seeing the mechanics.

The fact that you have a group biased against the class does not make it any less a bias. How happy was the player playing the Bard? Did he come to the game expecting, even hoping, to be mocked for his choice of character, having deliberately designed a Silly Sidekick? Did he keep playing that Bard, or get rid of it in favour of something he could play without mockery? And how long ago was it that anyone dared bring a Bard into your game?

Whereas when a different player played a barbarian that completely took over the game for a while, they cheered him on and didn't complain about spotlights and balance.

Emphasis added. "For a while" is not "SuperCharacter". It is a character taking his turn in the spotlight. The fact he held the spotlight for a while, after which it moved on, does not indicate an imbalance. EVERY character should be capable of holding the spotlight for a period of time. It is when one character dominates in that regard - a single character routinely holds the spotlight, with other characters rarely, if ever, shining - or when there is a character who is so beneath the others as to rarely or never enter the spotlight - that one character is always in someone else's shadow - that I would perceive a balance problem.

 

[billd91]

Poll your players and see if they feel the same way, or if they want characters capable of holding the spotlight. By the way, I would not classify a character whose main contributions are bolstering and enhancing their teammates as "a sidekick", nor would I consider a character who shines out of combat, solving meaningful challenges through knowledge, expertise, skill or negotiation to be a sidekick. A sidekick is a character who is of clearly lesser importance, utility and value than the main protagonist(s). Their contributions are routinely overshadowed by those of the other characters, not just useful in different types of challenges.

From Wikipedia, "A sidekick is a close companion who is generally regarded as subordinate to the one he accompanies. Some well-known fictional sidekicks are Don Quixote's Sancho Panza, Sherlock Holmes' Doctor Watson, The Lone Ranger's Tonto, The Green Hornet's Kato, Munna Bhai's Circuit, Batman's Robin and Hercule Poirot's Hastings. Annabeth Chase is nobody's sidekick."

There are times I think sidekick becomes the redheaded stepchild in these debates. Kato was a much better fighter than the Green Hornet. Robin was quite a competent character - clearly subordinate but almost a partner in many respects. And in the case of both Robin and Bucky (sidekick to Captain America), both had some of their own solo stories. The idea of sidekick is a lot more complex than many of these sorts of arguments imply.

 

[Cyberen]

Lol !
Ten pages ago [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] told us he considered the rules to be a base for his tinkering... and he got beaten for that.
Now he tells us he finds the concept of Bards as adventurer silly, and he's getting beaten again by guys citing the RAW to prove that Bards are a valid concept (or, even more funnily, find -perfectly valid- Appendix N justification for the Bards but conveniently ignore that sidekicks are also a perfectly valid staple of the fantasy genre).
I recognize [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] view as fully coherent : he has a clear view of the genre he wants to run, and doesn't feel constrained by the RAW. He legitimately defines his "bias" as his director signature. Some posters have made a quite convincing case for Balance being more or less mandatory in the RAW (because, if you present a choice, every option need to be somewhat viable) but I find the violent flak a DM is taking by avowing a prejudice against some options offered is... amazing.
I hope Next will be houseruling friendly, because I wouldn't mix kung-fu monks with dual wielding rangers with healing foutains with ... I think this mess requires some serious editing at campaign level (and I totally can envision bard-friendly campaign settings as well as bard-hostile ones).

 

[N'raac]

There are times I think sidekick becomes the redheaded stepchild in these debates. Kato was a much better fighter than the Green Hornet. Robin was quite a competent character - clearly subordinate but almost a partner in many respects. And in the case of both Robin and Bucky (sidekick to Captain America), both had some of their own solo stories. The idea of sidekick is a lot more complex than many of these sorts of arguments imply.

I'm not that familiar with Green Hornet as a character, but I think the "Kato is a better fighter" aspect largely came from the TV series, where Kato was portrayed by Bruce Lee.

Both Robin and Bucky had some solo stories back in the Golden Age, but both were clearly subordinate in their stories with the "main character". In my general experience, players want to play a "main character" who shares the spotlight with other "main characters", not a "sidekick" who's treated largely as an adjunct to a main character. Not "12 yo Robin who goes on patrol with Batman", but perhaps the older, college-age Robin or his eventual Nightwing persona, viewed as an equal and clearly recognized as having superior skills in some areas and enjoying his share of "spotlight time", not reverting to "Holy Reversion, Batman - what should we do?" when his mentor makes an appearance.

Once the sidekick comes out from under the wing of his "main character" to be a "main character" in his own right (which some characters with a 50+ year, 70+ for Robin and Bucky, have done), then I don't see the former sidekick being a "sidekick" any more.

 

[N'raac]

Now he tells us he finds the concept of Bards as adventurer silly, and he's getting beaten again by guys citing the RAW to prove that Bards are a valid concept (or, even more funnily, find -perfectly valid- Appendix N justification for the Bards but conveniently ignore that sidekicks are also a perfectly valid staple of the fantasy genre).

Perfectly validly simulated by followers, the leadership feat, etc. as being adjuncts to a PC, not PC's themselves.

I don't see Ahnehnois getting "beat up" - he's expressing his viewpoint and discussing where I, and others, may disagree. I hope he does not see himself as getting "beat up" either.

I recognize @Ahnehnois view as fully coherent : he has a clear view of the genre he wants to run, and doesn't feel constrained by the RAW. He legitimately defines his "bias" as his director signature. Some posters have made a quite convincing case for Balance being more or less mandatory in the RAW (because, if you present a choice, every option need to be somewhat viable) but I find the violent flak a DM is taking by avowing a prejudice against some options offered is... amazing.

Interestingly, while you perceive him as having a bias, he has vehemently denied any form of bias, classifying his views on "bards being a silly concept", or "bards being appropriately less viable adventurers" as objective fact, and subjectively appropriate, and not as any bias he may possess.

I hope Next will be houseruling friendly, because I wouldn't mix kung-fu monks with dual wielding rangers with healing foutains with ... I think this mess requires some serious editing at campaign level (and I totally can envision bard-friendly campaign settings as well as bard-hostile ones).

Are we talking house ruling (changing the nature of monks and rangers) or campaign/setting design (removal of the Monk and other Asian influences for a European campaign; eliminating Warforged in a low magic game; removal of non-human PC's for a Historical Europe)? The latter seems reasonable to me (or, if not, then it is unreasonable to me because I have a different taste in games). However, that does not mean the Monk should be included, but depowered so that anyone wishing to play one will clearly be less effective than the other "favoured European" classes. It means the Monk should either be excluded (and saved for a supplement providing Asian character classes) or included with abilities making him a viable character class choice, leaving GM's the option to include or exclude them for setting/campaign reasons, and not for reasons of balance because they are either overpowered or underpowered compared to other class choices.

 

[Manbearcat]

There are times I think sidekick becomes the redheaded stepchild in these debates. Kato was a much better fighter than the Green Hornet. Robin was quite a competent character - clearly subordinate but almost a partner in many respects. And in the case of both Robin and Bucky (sidekick to Captain America), both had some of their own solo stories. The idea of sidekick is a lot more complex than many of these sorts of arguments imply.

I think the important question in these sorts of debates is actually a pretty simple one. What percentage of the gaming populace wants to play a character who is ultimately subordinate to another character/player in a long term campaign? By subordinate I mean set dressing or support to express or further the potency/awesomeness of the (under this paradigm) primary protagonist character/player.

In all of my time GMing, I've run games for well over a hundred players. During that tenure, I've known of two (with one other being debatable) players that expressly wanted to be Sam, Merry or Pippin rather than Aragorn, Legolas or Gimli. I'm certain that my experience, while perhaps extreme, is not anomalous. The proportions may not be 100 +:3 but they are probably not far from 8:2.

I mean, isn't this just the classic "who is going to play the Cleric" problem in another guise (Isn't this why the minor/swift action heal was invented so players could do something besides heal in a round)? If the heavy majority of players don't want to play the subordinate, window dressing or support character that highlights another player's protagonism, shouldn't class balance be a virtue (level:level, otherwise what is the point of "level") in game design? Couldn't playing a subordinate/support character come with metagame currency that lets them play to that subordinate role while maintaining, relatively, equal viability (functionally with respect to their utility which is derived from their impact on the resolution of conflicts)? If classes are equally viable (with respect to their utility as derived from their impact on the resolution of conflicts), wouldn't it just be a small matter of perturbing their numbers slightly downward (HPs, defenses, skills, to-hit, damage, et al) or playing one level lower to get a weaker class?

The virtue of creating imbalanced classes (level:level) has always utterly escaped me.