D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

That said, balance is a real issue. In the longest 3.5 campaign I ever played, a 1st to 18th level affair, the rogue's player spent the last third pretty much ignoring combat and only making token rolls because he'd fallen so far being the casters in effectiveness. That sort of thing is bad because it makes players feel useless and ruins the feeling of a party as a team of equals.

Why exactly was the player ignoring combat?

 

[Raith5]

I have an interesting personal anecdote.

One of the reasons my players love 4e so much is that they don't have to have a lot of system mastery to be all around effective as characters.

They're all fairly busy late 20 to early 30 year olds. They don't spend much time if any thinking about their mechanics away from the table. Half of them have never even read a 4e PHB.

They realized the basics if the game are fairly simple and balanced. And fun. They don't need to worry much about effectiveness. They spend their time thinking about roleplaying, and the story.

I feel the same way about monster balance and ease of running the game as a DM. The strong, well thought out rules free me up to work on the other aspects if the game.

That's all the argument for balance being good I will ever need.

Notice I never said anything about DPR.

This is my experience too. I dont find 4th ed conception of balance boring. In fact for the martial PCs it is the first edition that gave some utility powers that gave these characters some interesting options that give a sense of tactical flair and fun - that made them comparable (but different) to the magical classes. The wizard in our party does magical things like making magical gates, teleporting etc but the righter and ranger still get to do interesting things my moving about, resisting damage and effects etc.

I dont think 4th ed is perfect but the sense of balance within in is about making the PCs be able to make meaningful contributions rather than equal or similar contributions.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

The problem with classes like, say, rogues in pre-4E is that their sum total of combat usefulness IS "+X damage except against blah." If we're going to continue with blanket immunities, then I would like to see a more diverse combat skill-set, NOT related to damage so that they can still contribute meaningfully in encounters where their damage tops out at 1d6+1. For instance, using attacks to expose weak points for teammates, or whatever.

On the flip-side, the fighter in every edition is just horrible in non-combat encounters. I like fighters, and I like roleplaying, and I don't like chanting the mantra "please, DM, don't look at my character sheet" in my head while I'm roleplaying. Now, out-of-combat is easier to solve, house-ruling-wise. Implementing Backgrounds from 4th Age is a great solution, but even a bit more lenience on class skills is sufficient to fix most of those problems.

The problem of combat usefulness, however, is a tougher nut to crack.

If you were worried about your rogue not affecting those creatures that are immune then there are magic items and spells that easily allow you to affect these creatures.

 

[Umbran]

Perfect examples of players who are only concerned with the damage they do. If they weren't, they would not "stack dice" but use other ways to help in combat.

That's a glib answer, and assumes that there is, in fact, some other fairly obvious way for them to help. While creative play should be lauded, there is only so far we can blame the player for not finding a creative way to assist at the time the encounter is happening.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

That's a glib answer, and assumes that there is, in fact, some other fairly obvious way for them to help. While creative play should be lauded, there is only so far we can blame the player for not finding a creative way to assist at the time the encounter is happening.

But there has to be a point when it is the players fault that they didn't prepare better. Is it the games fault if the fighter didn't purchase a bow, or if the enchanter only took spells that effect the mind and facing undead?

That's one of the dangers of over specialization. You don't always get what you want thrown at you.

 

[Incenjucar]

But there has to be a point when it is the players fault that they didn't prepare better. Is it the games fault if the fighter didn't purchase a bow, or if the enchanter only took spells that effect the mind and facing undead?

That's one of the dangers of over specialization. You don't always get what you want thrown at you.

It is if the game aims certain classes toward specialization. D&D is exceptionally prone to this.

Rogues should carry around great axes?

Wizards should be going sword and board?

Clerics should have blowguns?

Remember that this is D&D, where if your weapon isn't magical it may as well not exist outside of the earliest levels, and where keeping all of your weapons up to date is a financial nightmare.

 

[Derren]

That's a glib answer, and assumes that there is, in fact, some other fairly obvious way for them to help. While creative play should be lauded, there is only so far we can blame the player for not finding a creative way to assist at the time the encounter is happening.

Things like flanking, aid another, other spells, tripping or grappling (if there is a chance of success) and of course the always useful normal attack, just with some less D6 that the players are apparently used to?
I wonder, are those examples of just one battle? or do they represent a series of battles? If the former, no big deal. Let the others shine for once. If the latter, why didn't they prepare for it when they are so concerned about the damage they do? Both wizards and rogues can, with a little preparation be quite handy even with their main form of attack not working (and not only with Alchemist Fire).

Expecting a one trick pony which ons refuses to change to be able to overcome every obstacle and reacting with disinterest or worse when not doing "tons of damage" is imo just spoiled.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

It is if the game aims certain classes toward specialization. D&D is exceptionally prone to this.

Rogues should carry around great axes?

Wizards should be going sword and board?

Clerics should have blowguns?

Remember that this is D&D, where if your weapon isn't magical it may as well not exist outside of the earliest levels, and where keeping all of your weapons up to date is a financial nightmare.

Carrying a back up bow is not a great financial burden. Just because you max out completely as a two-handed fighter doesn't mean every creature that you face needs to be with in melee range just so you get the greatest efficiency.

The rogue is one of the most versatile classes in 3.5/PF. They can use any spell from any class. That class is known to have lot's of toys at their disposal.

 

[Umbran]

But there has to be a point when it is the players fault that they didn't prepare better.

Sometimes. But other times the player can have taken reasonable preparations, and still end up unable to be a useful contributor.

Moreover - the subject of the thread isn't about preparation for a specific encounter (often, you don't get to do that at all), but the pretty well documented fact that in several previous editions of the game, some basic character choices that a player should have expected to be robust got left behind in effectiveness as the party rose in level.

Is it the games fault if the fighter didn't purchase a bow, or if the enchanter only took spells that effect the mind and facing undead?

The existence of cases where it is the player's fault does not imply that *all* cases are the player's fault, or that cases where it is not the player's fault are few, or may be otherwise dismissed.

There are points where we ask why the GM, or the game, didn't help the player more.

 

[The Human Target]

If a rogues player wanted to cast spells, he would have picked a wizard.