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

[Incenjucar]

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?

1) Please don't insult people. There are much healthier ways to discuss your opinion than by calling people "spoiled."

2) In 3E, a rogue's tricks include things like being Sneaky, being good Scouts, and so on. The damage is just how they differentiate themselves from Experts in a conflict.

3) In 3E, not all rogues rank up in UMD. Many people are going to build a rogue to play like a sneaky dude with a dagger instead of a sneaky dude with a wand.

4) In 3E, the "combat options" are all very limited in utility for a rogue, especially given the creatures their schtick is useless against. I mean if your rogue can disarm, trip, bull rush, or grapple with a dracolich more power to you.

The problem is that the rogue class, like the fighter class, outside of 4E, is only given the one trick that is actually part of its class, with the rest just being better access to generic skills which they may not actually take up in favor of something more fitting for their story.

Build some more interesting abilities, and not just options which they hypothetically could take if, into a class, and this isn't as much of an issue. If rogues could do sweep kicks or provide major distractions that made enemies vulnerable, they would be able to switch tactics without having to be shoddy multiclass wizards.

 

[The Human Target]

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.

Sure.

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

I'm sorry, but MMOs are not the only type of game able to use basic English. If you think this is a conversation about MMOs you're not going to be able to discuss anything in good faith. This isn't about the Vidja Games.

That said, I was inaccurate, rogues are not strictly a melee class in design since they can snipe, but are still a physical weapon-using class.

 

[fjw70]

Excessive focus on balance will doom D&DN just like 4E IMHO. The 2 bigest selling D&Ds were also the most unbalanced - 1st and 3rd ed.

Don't confuse correlation with causation.

 

[Kurotowa]

Why exactly was the player ignoring combat?

I don't mean they left the table, I mean they sort of tuned out and didn't make much of an effort to participate. They weren't optimized, I think they'd gone with Dread Pirate because they really wanted to be a pirate and it was in the name, and compared to the cleric and druid and melee optimized triple-class Frankenstein they were contributing so little as to feel useless.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The problem is that the rogue class, like the fighter class, outside of 4E, is only given the one trick that is actually part of its class, with the rest just being better access to generic skills which they may not actually take up in favor of something more fitting for their story.

One too many, in my view. The real problem is that those generic skills aren't well-developed enough and too much emphasis is placed on specialized, exclusive class abilities.

 

[howandwhy99]

From my own experience, the balance issue is not an actual issue at all. I'm sure your miles may vary, and it may be an issue for you but it's not for me and the many people that I deal with.

You should play Palladium sometime. Or another game where balance is essentially "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit". Cooperative games where one player is guaranteed more ability at start, asymmetric, haven't been done to my knowledge. They are usually competitive games with many vs. one. Though I do believe balance in D&D has more to do with challenges in the world than between players. Not starting equally can be perceived as unfair. Not rewarding accomplishment with greater ability equally so. It's a tough line to straddle where heaping our powers on one character makes him or her stronger than us, yet still having a balanced game.

I actually prefer a game to support differing class levels between players (not that class level is commensurate with combat ability). I'm 1st level, you've worked up to 10th or higher, and yet the game still accommodates and supports both of us. That is a difficult design goal to accomplish, but ignoring our differences is not the only answer.

 

[Incenjucar]

One too many, in my view. The real problem is that those generic skills aren't well-developed enough and too much emphasis is placed on specialized, exclusive class abilities.

Sure, but that's the nature of a class-based system instead of a skill-based system.

 

[Incenjucar]

You should play Palladium sometime. Or another game where balance is essentially "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit". Cooperative games where one player is guaranteed more ability at start, asymmetric, haven't been done to my knowledge. They are usually competitive games with many vs. one. Though I do believe balance in D&D has more to do with challenges in the world than between players. Not starting equally can be perceived as unfair. Not rewarding accomplishment with greater ability equally so. It's a tough line to straddle where heaping our powers on one character makes him or her stronger than us, yet still having a balanced game.

Ars Magica is usually mentioned in reference to asymmetrically-balanced games. My understanding is that the whole system is that the Wizard is the important one, but players take turns playing the wizard (someone please correct me if I got that wrong.)

I actually prefer a game to support differing class levels between players (not that class level is commensurate with combat ability). I'm 1st level, you've worked up to 10th or higher, and yet the game still accommodates and supports both of us. That is a difficult design goal to accomplish, but ignoring our differences is not the only answer.

This has been handled in video games by using a side-kicking system: The lower-level character's numbers are boosted while near to the higher-level character, but they retain the lower-level lack of options.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sure, but that's the nature of a class-based system instead of a skill-based system.

Not necessarily. The 3e fighter really doesn't get anything unique (barring a few exclusive feats of limited value), and that's fine. Not only fine, but great. If all the other classes were done the same way the game would work a lot better.

A class doesn't have to have anything unique to that class; it can be seen as simply a package of abilities. A skill-based system would allow you to select any feats and skills you wanted, while the fighter class forces you to gain hit points, base attack, fort saves, and combat-related feats all at the same time. Flexibility is lost, while there may be a gain in ease of play for someone who doesn't want to have to select all those things individually. There's no reason why sneak attack (and every other class ability) couldn't be made into a feat or skill, and classes simply created as packages of thematically related feats and skills. In fact, a skeleton of that idea was presented in Uneathed Arcana, with all the core classes condensed to three generic customizable versions.

That would be the "Next" evolution of D&D's class system to my way of thinking.