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

[Derren]

At no time did I say I wanted only combat infact multi times I have said I want real balance not just combat

You said you want balanced (combat ability) be the default with non combat being clearly spelled out. And a warning sign next to classes like "Warning: Does not meet the normal combat power assumed by the game" clearly degrades non combat as not normal.

 

[billd91]

I am curious, what class would any of you put Frodo into?

I'd start the hobbits off with NPC classes, probably. Possibly aristocrat for Frodo since he's, in some ways, a country squire or I'd make him an expert to reflect his generally advanced education (compared to commoners). I'd do the same for Merry and Pippin. Sam would probably be a commoner. They'd all level up with an adventuring class after the encounter with the barrow wight and reaching Bree. I'd probably level them up again on reaching Rivendell. Then maybe again after Moria. Maybe once more for various adventuring (dealing with Ents/Theoden/Denethor and Shelob). And I'd probably level them all up one more time with the destruction of the Ring so they'd be at roughly 5th or 6th level with the Scouring of the Shire.

 

[Halivar]

Then again, Tolkien is also the prime example of focusing on setting rather than plot or character and spends hundreds of pages running on about places and things that have nothing to do with the protagonists ("hidden backstory" in your lexicon) and is frankly the antithesis of most of what you think about rpgs. I assume you must have the same aversion for his work that you do for the gaming style that derives from it.

Not at all. I have very different expectations from my reading than from my gaming. IMHO, Middle-Earth is a place I love to read about, but would not much like gaming there. This is because I prefer character-centric gaming, while ME is very much milieu-centric.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You said you want balanced (combat ability) be the default with non combat being clearly spelled out. And a warning sign next to classes like "Warning: Does not meet the normal combat power assumed by the game" clearly degrades non combat as not normal.

No no no please tell me where I said non combat anything?

I said if you want to play frodo it should be spelled out and that when my Don Juan should not get stuck being frodo because the system hides traps...

Infact I gave back 20 pages ago a way to remove sneak attack from the rogue so we could have Optons

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not at all. I have very different expectations from my reading than from my gaming. IMHO, Middle-Earth is a place I love to read about, but would not much like gaming there. This is because I prefer character-centric gaming, while ME is very much milieu-centric.

That's a fair point, the TTRPG and the novel are very different mediums. However, given that, I would not expect you to cite Middle Earth/LotR as a reference for game design if you feel that way.

The context you might not be aware of is in another thread where he recently stated that "establishing shots" or game time spent on establishing setting detail external to the characters is something he would never do in an rpg, and that it's inappropriate for a DM to allow any circumstances that there characters are not aware of affect their actions because it is "interposing a secret backstory". Of course, most of the LotR trilogy is devoted to focusing on things that the ostensible main characters are not aware of and have no direct relationship with, and is about a world and a story that is bigger than any one character's perspective.

Which of course is one example, but there are many others that have been spawned since then.

My point is that modern fantasy fiction does not exhibit the kind of "protagonism" that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] likes to talk about.

 

[Derren]

No no no please tell me where I said non combat anything?

I said if you want to play frodo it should be spelled out and that when my Don Juan should not get stuck being frodo because the system hides traps...

Infact I gave back 20 pages ago a way to remove sneak attack from the rogue so we could have Optons

My fight (and it sucks cause it feels like no one wants to do it) is to make it balanced
With options clearly spelled out to unbalance if your group wants

Balanced combat ability is normal, non combat clearly labeled if people want it...

And from the swashbuckler example we know that things like "not as good as the fighter", like in the description of the 3E rogue, is not clear enough for you.

 

[pemerton]

Do I really need to explain the relevance of the Lord of the Rings books and movies to D&D?? Really... It's influenced and is responsible for numerous things in the game... everything from monsters to races in the game was influenced by and/or taken from LotR

if i were trying to play LotR as opposed to making a character inspired by it you would have a point, but I'm not trying to do a re-enactment...

I didn't realise you were simply trying to emulate Frodo in some abstracted fashion. I thought you were talking about trying to capture a LotR feel.

Ironically, this example would be much better suited to an approach that simply makes him a PC with minimal abilities, and to have the DM contrive events external to him that allow his survival.

<snip>

LotR is about many things, but it is certainly not about Frodo making informed or efficacious decisions or being a "protagonist" in the sense you describe. Roleplaying that character would be best achieved by creating mechanics that make him clearly impotent and conveying a sense of helplessness on the player when confronted with obviously superior challenges.

<snip>

Tolkien is also the prime example of focusing on setting rather than plot or character and spends hundreds of pages running on about places and things that have nothing to do with the protagonists ("hidden backstory" in your lexicon) and is frankly the antithesis of most of what you think about rpgs. I assume you must have the same aversion for his work that you do for the gaming style that derives from it.

I don't know why you would make that assumption, given that the main examples of fantasy fiction I refer to in my posts are Arthurian romance, Tolkien's romances and REH's Conan.

Under any standard definition of "protagonist" there are two candidates for the protagonists of LotR: Frodo and Aragorn. The fact that, within the fiction, these character are not (entirely) masters of their own destinies does not mean they are not the protagonists of the work; otherwise, only a certain sort of modernist fiction (eg REH's Conan) would have a protagonist at all!

And as far as RPGing techniques are concerned, many RPGers want to do more than simply provide colour in a story otherwise completely determined by the GM; and there are other mechanical techniques to convey a sense of being hostage to fate - such as obliging a player to draw upon a pool of meta-resources - than the GM force that you suggest above.

I am curious, what class would any of you put Frodo into?

In AD&D he is a 0-level halfling. In 3E I guess he is an aristocrat, although that gives him weapon and armour proficiencies that some (eg [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]) will object to. I have already suggested that in 4e he works best as a lazy warlord.

 

[ImperatorK]

Do I really need to explain the relevance of the Lord of the Rings books and movies to D&D??

No. What you actually really need to explain is the relevance of a novel (not the LoTR novel) to a game. Because novels are veeeery different from games.

Actually thats what you and Mistwell are saying the whole time, that every character must be good in combat, because thats the only important part of D&D, which automatically excludes characters like Frodo.

No. We're saying that, because the game has combat as a big part, classes should be able to equally contribute to it.
And it doesn't exclude Frodo. Even with a balanced game you can still choose to purposefully make a character.

No, this is completely and utterly wrong. A swashbuckler is, if you want the iconic image, someone using light armor, a finesse weapon like a rapier and having a more carefree attitude. It is in no way tied to how many D6 you roll for damage.

It is when the game has dice.

Not, thats the nature of your game. Not mine, and not the ones of many other people who do not like forced combat characters.

Last time I checked we where all using the same system which is 90% about combat.

Whose arguing against this... I'm not, but if you tell me combat prowess has to be baked into every class at a certain level no matter what... well you gopt your options didn't you, but mine aren't possible.

How are they not possible?

Actually in 3E its very easy. Commoner, or expert when you are generous.

Those are NPC classes, so I see you agree with me that Frodo isn't a PC, but an NPC (pssibly a DMPC).

 

[Ahnehnois]

Regarding swashbucklers, there is absolutely nothing that requires that the concept be expressed by taking a rogue and maxing Charisma. It is entirely possible to play any martial character in a manner that is worthy of that term, and there is even a swashbuckler base class for 3.5 (admittedly a poorly designed and front-loaded one). The thug fighter variant and a reasonably charismatic ranger or barbarian can all be perfectly good "swashbucklers".

If you're playing a rogue and putting your best ability scores on the mental side, you're making a conscious decision that your non-combat skills are more important than your combat skills. This choice is clear and explicit, and anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the rules should be able to understand it. It is a perfectly fine choice, but if you want your swashbuckler to be a rogue, you then can't complain that you are't quite as good at fighting as a fighter.

 

[ImperatorK]

Balanced combat ability is normal, non combat clearly labeled if people want it...

Yes, becasue D&D is a game primarily about combat, whether you like it or not, just like football is about running with a ball and not dancing.

And from the swashbuckler example we know that things like "not as good as the fighter", like in the description of the 3E rogue, is not clear enough for you.

"Not as good as the Fighter" isn't the same as "completely ineffective".