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

[Jacob Marley]

In your defense (yeah, flip-flopping like a champ here!) the mage I made wouldn't be possible with just the first PHB. The mage is possible in 4e, meaning the state of the edition as it currently stands. A lot of people were put off 4e by their first impressions back in 2008 and aren't aware of how the game has improved. Which is perfectly understandable of course. I don't expect people to keenly follow and purchase supplements of an edition they initially have no interest in. I just wanted to demonstrate that the 4e of today is not the same as the one on launch.

As a person who played a lot of battlefield control-type wizards in 3.5, moving to 4e and having each of the available at-will, encounter, and daily spells (save sleep) in the Player's Handbook deal hit point damage was jarring. Ultimately, nearly everything dealing damage is what caused the majority of my group to pass on 4e.

And I say this as a person whose group likes The Tome of Battle, Complete Mage, and Magic Item Compendium - three of the books that were supposed to prime the pump for 4e.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Every edition has pros and cons... none is perfect, none is without sin...

If tomorrow someone invited me to a 2e game I would go, if a 3.5 I might (hardest sell), If 4e yup, if next/5e playtest you betcha, BEIMI I would kill to play this game again...

I will even include non WotC fantasy games, Myth and Magic, The new one I can't remember the name of, and 13th age would all be yeses...

Each has great things, each have things I would house rule... I even have my own hybrid system I am running now (but it is steam punk so I cut 99% casters out only having a modified artificer from 3e and Alchomist from pathfinder) so it is not really going to fit most D&D games...

I just would love for someone to take the best parts of these games and throw them together...

 

[Ahnehnois]

but 4E ensured that every character was combat-capable regardless of their focus, while other editions made no such guarantees of competence.

That's essentially what I was saying. In 3e (or 2e, for that matter), your typical hedge wizard/town priest/magic item crafter/etc. gains BAB and HP and saves slowly with levels, but otherwise may be a total noncombatant who memorizes no spells with offensive combat applications whatsoever.

As a player making a spellcaster, you choose across a wide spread of options. You can optimize for damage, pursue one of the more indirect combat foci, mix and match completely unrelated spells, or play a loremaster and devote your character to divinations spells. Combat is not built in, it is a choice.

The same is true for the rogue, to some extent, which is where this tangent started. Your SA is built in, but your ability score allocation, skill choices, and special abilities can be chosen for combat or completely noncombat applications.

If you think having all characters be roughly equal in combat effectiveness (for their level) is the definition of balance, and you want that kind of balance, this character creation flexibility is a bug. If you don't, it's a feature. My perspective on the issue is that I wish things like BAB and health would be more decoupled from level than they are, have combat effectiveness be less baked in.

 

[Remathilis]

As a person who played a lot of battlefield control-type wizards in 3.5, moving to 4e and having each of the available at-will, encounter, and daily spells (save sleep) in the Player's Handbook deal hit point damage was jarring. Ultimately, nearly everything dealing damage is what caused the majority of my group to pass on 4e.

And I say this as a person whose group likes The Tome of Battle, Complete Mage, and Magic Item Compendium - three of the books that were supposed to prime the pump for 4e.

Toss Star Wars Saga into that mix and you have EXACTLY what happened with our group!

It was the Artificer in Eberron that broke the camel's back for me. The 3.5 was a very unique class (that had its own unique balance issues, but that aside) but cramming it into the 4e powers-and-role model absolutely broke my view of the class. To me, it was the ultimate buffer/behind the scenes class, the best Batman-wizard the game ever produced. The 4e version was a shell of that; many of its powers barely made sense in its own fiction, the addition of a healing burst was unneeded (except to fill the Leader-as-healer role) and it felt completely divorced from real magic item creation. It might have shared the same name, but it couldn't have felt more different and "wrong" to me if it tried.

I give all the credit in the world to Essentials for trying to "right" the "wrongs" of early 4e; if HoFK/L was what we got in PHB1, our group MIGHT have still been playing it instead of Pathfinder.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It was the Artificer in Eberron that broke the camel's back for me. The 3.5 was a very unique class (that had its own unique balance issues, but that aside) but cramming it into the 4e powers-and-role model absolutely broke my view of the class.

Yea that one made it past me right until we had someone try to play it... Artificer feels VERY different in the two edtions...

 

[Jacob Marley]

I just would love for someone to take the best parts of these games and throw them together...

Like D&DNext?

I don't know if it is possible to merge what I like best about AD&D with what I like best in 3.x and 4e? Can a game system allow for organic character growth, be highly customizable, have multiple subsystems differentiating each class, and be tightly balanced?

Edit: Can a system have both quick character generation and a lot of character options? Can it run in both theater of the mind and as a miniatures/tabletop game?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Like D&DNext?

From your key board to god's server

 

[Farscape]

I will say that it's a perfectly legit criticism that 4E didn't offer as many atypical options as it could have, making many forms of play houserule-only, and that we could have used some Dragon articles designed to make combat-inept builds for those who want something less violence-oriented. This is also true of other editions, of course, since I don't think Rangers got many Bubble Bath spells, but 4E ensured that every character was combat-capable regardless of their focus, while other editions made no such guarantees of competence.

That said, this is a content issue, and not a system issue.

I disagree.

It is very much a system issue because you will not find the baked in combat focus in any other edition.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

That's essentially what I was saying. In 3e (or 2e, for that matter), your typical hedge wizard/town priest/magic item crafter/etc. gains BAB and HP and saves slowly with levels, but otherwise may be a total noncombatant who memorizes no spells with offensive combat applications whatsoever.

As a player making a spellcaster, you choose across a wide spread of options. You can optimize for damage, pursue one of the more indirect combat foci, mix and match completely unrelated spells, or play a loremaster and devote your character to divinations spells. Combat is not built in, it is a choice.

The same is true for the rogue, to some extent, which is where this tangent started. Your SA is built in, but your ability score allocation, skill choices, and special abilities can be chosen for combat or completely noncombat applications.

If you think having all characters be roughly equal in combat effectiveness (for their level) is the definition of balance, and you want that kind of balance, this character creation flexibility is a bug. If you don't, it's a feature. My perspective on the issue is that I wish things like BAB and health would be more decoupled from level than they are, have combat effectiveness be less baked in.

Exactly!

A friend of mine always played his rogues like Batman minus the combat. He maxed out his skills, especially UMD and just ran around buffing people and always having the right scroll for the right occasion.

 

[Incenjucar]

I disagree.

It is very much a system issue because you will not find the baked in combat focus in any other edition.

A system issue would be if "all powers must contain damaging components" was baked into the rule system and had to be houseruled out. You can solve it by just making a feat that replaces damage with a different effect, or by building a splat book with new, non-damage powers.

Moreover, I found combat to be very much the focus of 2E and 3E, and have run five-hour sessions of 4E without any combat whatsoever. I have an absolutely massive pile of 2E splats that are riddled with new ways to kill things.

--

How is buffing someone in combat not combat?