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

[N'raac]

OK, I'm trying to parse out the negatives and understand what you're saying. "there seem to be a lot of posters who don’t agree that balance is not worth pursuing" - so there are a lot of people who believe balance is worth pursuing is what you're trying to say? Or is there one too many negatives in here?

When it comes to balance, I don't think people believe it's not worth pursuing... to a point. The question is where that point is. I want there to be some balance in my games. I'm not happy to see dictatorial or even very dominating strategies that broadly apply to too many situations (localized ones like the utility of death ward when facing a dread wraith, I'm OK with). I want all of the designed character types to be useful to a party of adventurers and allow the average player choosing that character type to have fun and not feel useless. However, I also think that, this being a role playing game and not a competitive board game, pursuing balance is less important than providing characters with interesting and genre-appropriate tools to pursue the adventures they want to pursue. And if that means there isn't perfect balance, I'm OK with that.

I think you parsed it out nicely, and I think your statement sums it up. Not "balance at all costs", but "balance as one prioritized objective". Perfect balance is easy in isolation. Everyone gets the same bonuses, hp, penalties, and abilities - we just name and fluff them differently. We have that in lots of games, of course - Candyland, Sorry, Monopoly, the list is endless. Not so much in more complex games like RPG's, and perfect balance is not practically attainable. While that doesn't mean the game should be designed to make every character identical, it does mean it should not be designed to have deliberate imbalances, such as "you can play a halfling fighter, or a bard, or these other choices, but they will be designed to be inferior to these other selections". If certain concepts are viewed as "second class" and designed as such, they should be segregated from the PC suggested choices, and explicitly noted as intentionally inferior than the PC choices, much like 3rd Ed's NPC classes.

 

[Ratskinner]

A player who signs up to play a three foot tall fighter is almost certainly not doing so with the expectation that his overall combat effectiveness will be equivalent to that of a medium sized character.

I do not think that's true at all. Especially if we consider overall effectiveness at adventuring, rather than a straight-up fight. I would think that the player halfling/gnome/dwarf fighter expects his character to play differently than the human fighter, but not necessarily worse overall. I see absolutely no problem with saying that two fighters of equivalent level are of (roughly) equal combat effectiveness. The heavier fighter does it with strength and the lighter with more skill and cleverness. (Trust me, I outmass my sensei by almost 60% and hold no illusions about which of us would win that fight.) So far as I am aware, there is nothing in any edition that defines levels purely as a measure of skill, rather than overall ability.

I especially don't like the idea that we are trying to be subtle about it. If someone was to explicitly desire to play the sidekick or lesser character for some reason, then I don't see why they couldn't start with a balanced system and just refuse to level up, or take some other equally explicit penalty. However, I don't like the idea that I'm supposed to be "reading" this information from a player's choices. Worse, I don't like the idea that someone has to come to the table having read through the game to conclude these things.

<snip many unsupported numerical claims>

I've had probably a single-digit number of complaints, ever, about one character being more or less powerful than the others, most of which involved gross misreadings of rules and none of which were game-breaking.

This experience is very different from mine. In 2e and 3e, I experienced many episodes where class\character imbalance either tore apart a campaign or threatened to do so. (In fact, the current OSR game I'm in is on the verge of such a collapse.) While DMs can deal with it, I certainly don't see any reason to advocate for it. Additionally, I'm quite confident that this kind of "anticipated imbalance" you seem to be advocating here is not nearly as popular as you seem to think. Speaking as an experienced DM...it seems like a lot more work than its worth.

The simple fact is that even if a group wants something imbalanced for some reason ("We're playing Conan, barbarians should rock!" or "This is a magic-heavy world, Wizards should be dominant." or "This is a mafia-centered world, Thieves are the cat's pajamas here." etc.) It is much easier, and more reliable, to start with a "balanced" game and tweak it from there than it is to try and rework a wildly imbalanced system. Thus, starting from a position of balance supports a wider diversity of playstyles than starting from a particular disparity.

 

[Ratskinner]

My real problem is that "being a good adventurer" is being equated with "being a good combatant." And those who aren't good in combat directly are mocked by Ahnennois' play group as being "bad adventurers." And the thought that this mechanic differentiation would carry over into concepts that get mocked at his table baffles me. Though what happens at his table is of no concern to me, designing a modern game with those tenets is something I would find abhorrent and unplayable (unless it was a Korgoth of Barbaria RPG that purposefully put Barbarians on a pedastal).

Relevant to the "combat"="adventure" conflation. I think some of that is playstyle, and not in just the obvious meaning. I've been in a group with a lot of adventures that could easily be described as repeating: "You enter a box. The box has <enemies> in it. Roll for initiative." In such a game, where every encounter is basically a boxing match, any class other than the heavy fighters tends to lose its potency.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Relevant to the "combat"="adventure" conflation. I think some of that is playstyle, and not in just the obvious meaning. I've been in a group with a lot of adventures that could easily be described as repeating: "You enter a box. The box has <enemies> in it. Roll for initiative." In such a game, where every encounter is basically a boxing match, any class other than the heavy fighters tends to lose its potency.

Which is a perfectly valid playstyle. One that I've enjoyed at times. Yet I would never come onto the boards and claim that the barbarian is a better *adventurer* than the bard. Would I call him a better melee combatant? Yes. Would I call him a better combatant? No, because I value every character's part they play in the success of the group. Just because the bard isn't the one smacking people with his sword doesn't make him a worse combatant, and certainly not a worse adventurer. Never mind getting into the concepts behind the mechanics being more or less valuable as an adventurer.

 

[Cadence]

Yet I would never come onto the boards and claim that the barbarian is a better *adventurer* than the bard. Would I call him a better melee combatant? Yes. Would I call him a better combatant? No, because I value every character's part they play in the success of the group. Just because the bard isn't the one smacking people with his sword doesn't make him a worse combatant, and certainly not a worse adventurer. Never mind getting into the concepts behind the mechanics being more or less valuable as an adventurer.

I agree about not conflating "better at melee combat" with "better as an adventurer" and also with not conflating "great at melee combat" with "great at combat", "useful in a fight", or "fun to play in a fight".

I don't think I buy that no class is designed to be "better combatant"s or that no class should be an overall "better combatant". In every edition (except maybe 4th) haven't there been some classes that by default were structurally better on average than others outside of combat (social/non-combat skills, more skill points, non-combat utility spells, whatnot)? If there have been such classes, then why should they also get to be just as good in the combat side of adventuring as the pure fighter, but better on the social side? If you claim there haven't been such classes, then I don't understand the various abilities of the thief/rogue versus those of the fighter throughout the various editions.

Or do you mean something different by "better combatant" than the effect the characters would have on net damage sustained and inflicted once it was clear a fight was going to happen (say as compared to a party where that player were substituted out for some other class, like WARP in baseball)?

 

[N'raac]

Relevant to the "combat"="adventure" conflation. I think some of that is playstyle, and not in just the obvious meaning. I've been in a group with a lot of adventures that could easily be described as repeating: "You enter a box. The box has <enemies> in it. Roll for initiative." In such a game, where every encounter is basically a boxing match, any class other than the heavy fighters tends to lose its potency.

Unquestionably. To me, that playstyle shifts the balance, and I'd like to see Next explicitly state the assumptions under which classes were designed, and even provide modules where we break them (eg. if the game is all combat, let's let classes trade away noncombat abilities for more or better combat abilities - but in a typical game, let's not allow such hyperspecialization that we get a combat powerhouse who can't do anything useful outside combat, or vice versa). This has become a good chunk of the "sneak attack" thread debate.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Double post.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Or do you mean something different by "better combatant" than the effect the characters would have on net damage sustained and inflicted once it was clear a fight was going to happen (say as compared to a party where that player were substituted out for some other class, like WARP in baseball)?

I was specifically referring to the bard. I see room for characters that are not equal in all three pillars, although it would be helpful to point out the ones designed this way to help the DM tailor his choices of allowed subclasses and players to avoid choices that might not turn out the way they imagine. I would like to see the net worth of each choice across the pillars to be relatively equal.

 

[Cadence]

I was specifically referring to the bard. I see room for characters that are not equal in all three pillars, although it would be helpful to point out the ones designed this way to help the DM tailor his choices of allowed subclasses and players to avoid choices that might not turn out the way they imagine. I would like to see the net worth of each choice across the pillars to be relatively equal.

Thanks for the clarification. I can certainly see arguments about the Bard being a lot more valuable member in combat than he's given credit for. And some more info for both the players and GMs on the strengths and weakness of the classes seems like a nice idea (like what @N'raac posted two up).

How would you rate the Barbarian, Fighter, and Bard in terms of the three pillars? (Trying to build a picture of your view on how the latter balances with the d10 full BAB classes).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

How would you rate the Barbarian, Fighter, and Bard in terms of the three pillars? (Trying to build a picture of your view on how the latter balances with the d10 full BAB classes).

I find it hard to judge as the two non-combat pillars weren't as well supported as I hope they will be in DDN. Many non-combat encounters varied widely depending on the individual DM. 4E added some structure, but pretty much made everyone on comparative value across all pillars. It's a good question, though I suspect the answers you get would be based on skill slots alone as that was really the only solid measure previously.