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

[Derren]

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

As this point only comes up in "exclusively sneak attack immune creature 10ft room dungeon crawl with no non combat interaction at all" I have no problem with it.

Because in every other scenario the rogue brings usefull stuff to the table (the wizard can simply use different spells). And that of course shouldn't mean that he would be useless in combat either, just not throwing around sacks full of D6 around which for some people apparently is the only source of fun in an rpg.

 

[The Human Target]

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.

And yet, some people say all 4e classes are the same and everything involves max damage, balance made everything worse, etc etc.

It baffles me.

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

Carrying a backup magic weapon is not cheap, especially at higher levels, and you've had your character horribly weakened when you resort to it. A fighter with a bow isn't as bad as a wizard who resorts to hurling darts, but they're not impressing anyone.

Rogues can be terrible wizards instead of rogues, yes.

 

[The Human Target]

As this point only comes up in "exclusively sneak attack immune creature 10ft room dungeon crawl with no non combat interaction at all" I have no problem with it.

Because in every other scenario the rogue brings usefull stuff to the table (the wizard can simply use different spells). And that of course shouldn't mean that he would be useless in combat either, just not throwing around sacks full of D6 around which for some people apparently is the only source of fun in an rpg.

You sure have us pegged.

 

[Derren]

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

If the ranger player wanted to cast spells he would have chosen a wizard, too!. Doesn't change that he has them.

 

[The Human Target]

If the ranger player wanted to cast spells he would have chosen a wizard, too!. Doesn't change that he has them.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[Derren]

I have no idea what this means.

It means that there are other classes than the wizard who can cast spells and that many players are willing to do so even when not playing a wizard.

The rogue in 3E had the ability to use every magical item in existence, making him pretty darn flexible, even when you consider it to be not roguelike.

 

[Incenjucar]

It means that there are other classes than the wizard who can cast spells and that many players are willing to do so even when not playing a wizard.

I think there's going to be inherent resistance in a conversation revolving around magic being the correct answer even for physical melee classes, much like the "Well just use alchemy" conversation.

 

[The Human Target]

I think there's going to be inherent resistance in a conversation revolving around magic being the correct answer even for physical melee classes, much like the "Well just use alchemy" conversation.

Yup.

Player : "My Rogue isn't able to do his shtick right now."

DM: "Cast some spells, power gamer!"

 

[Derren]

Yup.

Player : "My Rogue isn't able to do his shtick right now."

DM: "Cast some spells, power gamer!"

I think there's going to be inherent resistance in a conversation revolving around magic being the correct answer even for physical melee classes, much like the "Well just use alchemy" conversation.

Ah, so we are talking about those spoiled one trick pony players I mentioned above who only have fun when doing lots of damage but are not willing to deviate from their pre planned build of sneak attack focus and not even look at the use magic device skill, alchemical items or all the other combat options (trip, grapple, disarm, aid another, flanking, bull rush) available to them?

If they are doing it for role play reasons then it is fine, but being powerless in some ways is part of the role and can lead to very good RP.
If they are just concerned with damage, they would embrace those other options instead of rejecting them (except when they are so focused on the potential damage they could do that they refuse to settle for anything less).
And those persons who are only concerned about damage but also refuse to deviate from their build, even when its "not working"? Are they sure they want to play an RPG?

And [MENTION=6182]Incenjucar[/MENTION]
The rogue is not a "physical melee class". That term belongs into the realm of MMOs, but not to PnP RPGs.