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

[Ahnehnois]

Thats a remarkably narrow view of "combat". Is the Mace and Shield Cleric a combat class? Monk?

The monk is somewhat debatably under the fighter-like martial characters.

A mace and shield cleric is not a class. Cleric is a class. There are some cleric characters who are combat characters, and some who are not (probably quite a few if you consider what the typical NPC clergyman is doing during the day). Thus the cleric is not a combat class.

No? I'd put the Dread Pirate Westly/Robin Hood up against Conan/Lancelot any day of the week.

That would be an example of a swashbuckling rogue who is also an elite warrior, which is fine, simply not mandatory.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And what exactly is your definition of "rock at combat" and how much should the player work for it (like chosing a fighter instead of rogue for his swaschbuckler)?

If you want new players not to see rogues as combat class then spell it out... don't make a class that looks in theory to be the dashing swordsman...

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you want new players not to see rogues as combat class then spell it out... don't make a class that looks in theory to be the dashing swordsman...

Yes, it should be spelled out. And it is. The descriptive text I've seen for rogues makes this clear. Take this example, emphasis mine:

Characteristics: Rogues are highly skilled, and they concentrate on developing several categories of skills. While not equal to members of many other classes in combat, a rogue knows how to hit where it hurts, and can dish out a lot of damage with a sneak attack.

Is that not spelled out clearly?
This is the first example of the rogue (not thief). The rogue is about skills first, and is not an overall strong combatant but is a high-variance character that can sometimes be quite devastating while often being relatively ineffective.

Given how attractive that text is to players, I wish we'd see more classes with diverse goals other than just being good at combat.

*As a side note, I'm often surprised at how well the core books are written upon rereading them.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So many people assert this, but it seems that they do so without any real understanding of what OD&D was actually like. I can tell you that there were lots of war games that were produced and played around that time, but the one thing which made OD&D different and innovative was that combat was a tiny bit compared to the exploration and role playing aspects, which were the genuine innovation.

OD&D was created by wargamers, out of a wargame for sure. That doesn't mean that it was primarily a wargame, and I see much more of a wargame influence in the rules design and actual play from 3e onwards.

Regards

The original game was a war game with a very thin layer of something new over it....

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes, it should be spelled out. And it is. The descriptive text I've seen for rogues makes this clear. Take this example, emphasis mine:
Is that not spelled out clearly?

no it is not spelled out enough...it makes it sound like it is still a viable combat class just less then fighter or paliden or barbarian... it isn't as I keep being told in this very thread, a combat class at all...

This is the first example of the rogue (not thief). The rogue is about skills first, and is not an overall strong combatant but is a high-variance character that can sometimes be quite devastating while often being relatively ineffective.

wait that almost sounds like it would explain it... why doesn't it say THAT?

Given how attractive that text is to players, I wish we'd see more classes with diverse goals other than just being good at combat.

as long as it isn't hidden in a class that gets more combat features then noncombat features...

why does the rogue get evasion at 2 levels Uncanny dodge at 3 levels and sneak attack at 10 levels (so 15 out of 20 levels getting combat features) and why does it say:

Characteristics: Rogues are highly skilled, and they concentrate on developing several categories of skills. While not equal to members of many other classes in combat, a rogue knows how to hit where it hurts, and can dish out a lot of damage with a sneak attack.

No one is asking for Rogues to be fighters... I just want them to be better then the druids animal companion...

and I want fighters to be upgraded so that no cleric or druid can EVER be better at combat even with self buffs to a fighter with half his feats as combat feats...

 

[Ahnehnois]

no it is not spelled out enough...

wait that almost sounds like it would explain it... why doesn't it say THAT?

Uh, can't help you there. I don't know how much clearer the book could possibly have made it. It says "While not equal to members of many other classes in combat". That's pretty clear. Then it says all some stuff about how while they aren't equal, they aren't worthless. There is some space in between.

as long as it isn't hidden in a class that gets more combat features then noncombat features...

That's debatable. Their main class feature, as that text I quoted notes, is their 8+Int mod skills. Some of which have some combat applications, but I don't read the class entry and see mostly combat stuff. I see trap detection and trap sense, an evasion ability that's useful in combat and against those peksy traps, and a special ability list with combat and non-combat options. Then I see the two uncanny dodges, and sneak attack, which is one ability that scales with level.

No one is asking for Rogues to be fighters... I just want them to be better then the druids animal companion...

Congratulations! They're much better.

and I want fighters to be upgraded so that no cleric or druid can EVER be better at combat even with self buffs to a fighter with half his feats as combat feats...

I assume you also want it so that no character can ever sing a single song better than a bard, or no character can ever be a better healer than a cleric, and so on? That's just not realistic.

Everything is a bell curve. There are always going to be some instances of clerics, druids, wizards, rogues, bards, and everyone else being better in at fighting than some fighters. There are also going to be some instances where the fighter player makes some genius suggestion that the player of the 18 Int wizard doesn't. Stuff happens.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rewrite all the classes in a heart beat (and did, though it took longer than that). I think every one of them should be better at achieving the underlying concept. But since those concepts are all different, I don't believe in making these apples to oranges comparisons. If a typical fighter (or even rogue) was outpaced by a typical animal companion (or a typical buffed cleric, or what have you), I guess that would be a minor issue you'd want to address in revisions. Since this is not the case, I don't see the big deal.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I like to play competent heroes, not incompetent peasants. In a game with mechanics you do it by using mechanics. Sure, I could pretend that my character is a great hero, just like I can pretend that my bicycle is a Ferrari, but why would I do that when I could have the real thing?

Funny how you define heroism with mechanics.

 

[Marshall]

The monk is somewhat debatably under the fighter-like martial characters.

A mace and shield cleric is not a class. Cleric is a class. There are some cleric characters who are combat characters, and some who are not (probably quite a few if you consider what the typical NPC clergyman is doing during the day). Thus the cleric is not a combat class.

See, this is where you go off the tracks. Every Cleric is a combat character. If its not a combat character, its probably not a Cleric. The generic NPC clergyman is most likely not even a spellcaster. To put him in 3e terms, he's likely an Expert, maybe an Adept, maybe a Healer(a class that SHOULD NOT exist) and the outside a 1-2 level Cleric. These are Adventuring classes. That assumes a base level of adventuring competence, which includes combat(at least after 1st level).

There is no such thing as a non-combat class. Once you're an adventurer you turn from Q into Bond, from Marcus Brody into Indiana Jones or you turn into comic relief.

That would be an example of a swashbuckling rogue who is also an elite warrior, which is fine, simply not mandatory.

Yeah, thats the point. Swashbuckling Rogues ARE Elite Warriors(too may caps).

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Because of 4th editions emphasis on combat, I feel a lot of the concepts that I enjoyed were lost. No one can deny that combat came first while everything else was tacked on. Every single class had combat powers and if you tried to go through the game without using them you felt wasted. What I like about 3rd/Pathfinder is that everyone has a single combat mechanic which is BAB, but you are then able to either pursue it or leave it at it's basic level. I've played non combat wizards who only supported other characters. You will not find a single class in all of 4th edition that can do this. Yes you have classes that support, but it all has to do with combat.

I really hope Next keeps combat and noncombat at an equal or almost equal level.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

There is no such thing as a non-combat class. Once you're an adventurer you turn from Q into Bond, from Marcus Brody into Indiana Jones or you turn into comic relief.

From this post here, I'm going to assume you don't have much gaming experience.