D&D 5E What I want out of 5th edition and my thoughts on what we have so far.

[Falling Icicle]

Why is combat balance important?

Because combat is a major part of the game, and it's one that has very lethal implications for the characters.

Who decided that all combat oriented classes needed to be balanced damage wise?

They aren't all balanced damage wise, nor do they need to be. Balance can take many forms. There are many ways that characters can contribute to combat situations that don't necessarily involve doing damage. For example, an enchanter wizard can contribute just as much to combat as an evoker without doing any damage at all. What matters is that every type of character gets to meaningfully contribute and be an important part of the team.

I honestly don't care if the barbarian out damages my fighter or vice versa. I don't play these classes for the sheer damage that they may be able to do.

If you don't care about how much damage classes do, then why does the idea of them being balanced bother you so much? If you don't care if they are out of balance, why do you care if they are in balance?

Not sure where you get the idea that people don't like to play rogues. I run weekly Pathfinder games and rogue is the top class that is usually played.

I didn't say people don't like to play rogues in general, but I have seen people deliberately avoid playing one when the DM informed them that the adventure would have a lot of undead. I've also seen people play rogues in such situations, and end up very bored as a result. Many other people have told me about similar experiences over the years.

Not sure why zombies, skeletons, and golems need to worry about food. Skeletons, zombies, and golems have never ever been described as having thought and so far, they haven't been described as having thought in Next either.

Where does it say that zombies, skeletons and golems need to worry about food?

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Why is combat balance important? Seriously?

Damage isn't the only way to measure martial power. If the fighter has higher AC and can disarm opponents, it's just exercising power in a different way. (This is very clear in 4e. Fighters aren't the heaviest dealing class, being defenders. Barbarians are strikers and deal lots of damage. Fortunately they have different roles, so no one complains if the barbarian does more.)



Pathfinder rogues can sneak attack a much wider variety of opponents than their 3rd Edition counterparts... and the class is still generally unpopular, because it's skills can be stolen by other classes that have better combat abilities as well.



Well, some undead need to eat brains... More to the point, a zombie can distinguish between its master (which it won't attack), a living creature (which it will) and an undead creature (which it won't). That's basic intelligence.

1: Not really sure what you are trying to say there. Again, I ask why you think combat balance is so important? Why does it matter if the fighter is doing 56 damage per round while the rogue is doing 25? 4th edition tried this route and look what happened to it. Some players actually don't care as much about combat as others do. They aren't looking for a game that tries to codify this.

2: Again, the rogue is still one of the most popular classes in the game. I run a Pathfinder Society game every week and that is the class that is chosen most often.

3: Some undead need to eat brains? I think you are trying to justify it by adding in your own interpretation. Magic allows the zombie to distinguish it's master from others.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Might I persuade you to consider the following modification to your statement?

"I know we have hit dice instead of Healing Surges and I want that optional. Call it what you will, they're conceptually similar enough that I don't care for either. That said, I recognize that other people like things that I may not care for and don't think that they should be deprived of rules they favor just because I dislike them."

I generally disagree with most of the things you'd like to see change, but I certainly hope that, through optional, modular game design, we can both have what we want.

In all my years of gaming, I have learned that everyone doesn't get what they want unfortunately.

If you don't want what I want then you have 4th edition to play. What I want is basically a complete opposite of that edition.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Why is combat balance important? Who decided that all combat oriented classes needed to be balanced damage wise?

A good question, but really not broad enough. Why is any kind of balance important? Why is balance between the player's choices considered more important than balance between different world elements?

Are "unbalanced" characters common? Not really, in any version of D&D. Do they cause serious problems in play? Not really, often just a few chuckles and a wink and a nod here and there, or just thrilling heroic play. Does more balance improve the experience for the players? Definitely not; it often limits and irritates them. So what's the goal here?

 

[Halivar]

Again, I ask why you think combat balance is so important? Why does it matter if the fighter is doing 56 damage per round while the rogue is doing 25? 4th edition tried this route and look what happened to it.

This is non-sequitur. Just being in 4E does not make it bad, whatever your preferred edition. You need a bit more substance to this argument. WHY is it bad?

Some undead need to eat brains? I think you are trying to justify it by adding in your own interpretation. Magic allows the zombie to distinguish it's master from others.

Magically intelligent beings are still granted an Intelligence score, such as intelligent magic items.

If you don't want what I want then you have 4th edition to play. What I want is basically a complete opposite of that edition.

And you have Pathfinder. But that's not the point. Texicles wants a modular game that you both can play, and I don't understand the beef people have with that.

 

[Sage Genesis]

If you don't want what I want then you have 4th edition to play. What I want is basically a complete opposite of that edition.

Ah, you want a classless, diceless game set in a hard science near-future version of the real world where characters have little power to change anything?

No, of course that's not what you meant. Perhaps this discussion would go better if people could stop using needlessly divisive edition war language. The notion that people who liked 4e (or indeed any aspect of 4e at all) shouldn't see a return of such aspects in Next is toxic to any worthwhile discussion we might have here. We ought to be able to discuss any game element on its own merits, not discard it out of hand because 4e also happened to do it. Or did something that might kind of look like it (because really, Next's hit dice and 4e's healing surges are nothing alike).

 

[Bluenose]

WotC has historically been bad at non-combat. There's no narrative control features beyond spells. Attempts to deal with this often didn't make sense. (I could take my Int 8, Cha 11 fighter in 2e to high levels, build a keep, become a lord and attract followers, even though my fighter is not particularly intelligent, won't impress the king and isn't all the great at instilling loyalty. I don't recall high Charisma doing anything to boost my follower's morale either, although that's the kind of thing that might not have been in the core rules. Note that the rules said at whatever level the fighter gained followers, without me being able to do anything to enhance that. Dark Sun was the worst in this regard. If you're a high-level fighter, you gained followers, period... even if you didn't want them!)

WotC probably made more effort to provide rules for non-combat than any TSR edition, even if D&D remained a poor game for non-combat situations. And I'm sure high charisma provided a morale bonus to all followers, in Basic at least and I think 1e too. Then 2e got rid of morale.

 

[Derren]

"rule of fun"

What many people here fail to understand is that what you present is only fun for a small group (imo with a lot of overlap with pro 4E people) and that focusing on this kind of fun was what lead to the 4E desaster and the current crisis D&D is in as this focus on combat drove many people away who have fun doing "the other stuff".

Why is combat balance important? Seriously?

Yes, seriously.
A role playing game does not consist only out of combat and for many people it is perfectly acceptable that one character is better at combat than the others because of his role. They do not need MMO like balance where everything you can play must be as good in combat as everyone else. That limits what you can play and also results in some very strange characters as everyone must also be a fighter.

 

[Texicles]

Emphasis mine.

1: Not really sure what you are trying to say there. Again, I ask why you think combat balance is so important? Why does it matter if the fighter is doing 56 damage per round while the rogue is doing 25? 4th edition tried this route and look what happened to it. Some players actually don't care as much about combat as others do. They aren't looking for a game that tries to codify this.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Also, because to some people, balance matters, rule of fun, etc.

In all my years of gaming, I have learned that everyone doesn't get what they want unfortunately.

It certainly seems like a better design goal than saying nuts to everyone else, this game will be played this and only this way, despite years of market study which has led us to conclude that we have a very disparate player base with many divergent playstyles and goals.

If you don't want what I want then you have 4th edition to play. What I want is basically a complete opposite of that edition.

I never said that the things I want only come from 4th edition. I certainly don't dislike that edition, nor do I like it to the exclusion of others. Now, if you'll recall, you started this thread talking about a laundry list of things you don't like about 5e, I tell you that overall, I disagree, and you tell ME to go play another edition?

Clearly, I'm in the wrong here and that the edition you have no shortage of complaints about should be reconsidered in the light of your recent wishlist thread on ENWorld, modified to suit you, and those of us who pretty much like what's going on with 5e thus far can go step on a d4.

Look, I was trying to be subtle about this, but I'll just come out and say it. Around these here parts, folks don't take kindly to edition warring. IMO, the fastest way to an edition war is the mindset that this one way that I like is superior to all the other ways that other people like, and that what I like should exist while what I don't like shouldn't. You'd be wise to have a more open mind before engaging in discussion.

 

[SteveC]

Combat balance is important because of the "game" aspect of the RPG.

The Next edition has talked quite a bit about three pillars of D&D: the social aspect, the exploration aspect and the combat aspect. Each of those pillars is an important part of a D&D game, and so each character should have something to do when each of the pillars is getting its time on stage, as it were.

So that's why combat balance is important: combat is designed to be one-third of your game experience playing D&D (although from my experience, in many campaigns it ends up closer to half, or even more) so giving the players something to contribute during that period is important in terms of game design. Notice that I said "something to contribute" which does not necessarily mean damage: a well designed combat has room for several different roles that can all contribute and have fun. That's good game design.

Now what follows from that, and gets talked about a whole lot less, is that the other two pillars should get equal time in the spotlight, and good game design means that everyone gets to do something at those times as well. Those two pillars need massive work to shore them up to being on the same level as combat in the game.

When I see discussions like this, it seems like people are saying "we spend too much time on combat, so let's make it less detailed and less interesting so that it doesn't overshadow the other two pillars." While that's one way to tackle the issue, I'd say it's precisely the wrong way to go about it: D&D has fun, exciting combat, and the way to balance the game is not to make it any less interesting, but rather to make the other parts of the game more interesting and take them up to the level of importance that combat has.

I play a character in Warhammer Fantasy who is about 90% dedicated to social and knowledge actions. He's a noble Indiana Jones as it were. That character gets plenty to do outside of combat, since the game has robust support for that kind of action. When combat starts, I take a much more supporting role, and help the other characters (largely combat monsters) do their job. It works, and it's fun, but that's because the game is designed for a lot of social encounter-ing.

There are games where exploration is a huge part of the rules (the One Ring is the one I am playing at the moment), and MANY games where the social aspects to the game are just as important as combat (any game with "social combat"), so there's no reason we can't have those nice things for D&D as well.

So (and this is my opinion, of course) the solution isn't to say "let's make combat less interesting," but rather to make the other parts of the game better." Saying, "I want D&D where combat is, well, less fun," is fine to want (of course!) I just don't think that's the best course of action to make a game people will want to play.