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

[Ahnehnois]

Why? If you can play gandaulf or Merlin orthe guy that can turn I to a bear and have a bear friend and summon more bears well calling lighting. Then why can't I be the most interesting man in the world?

None of those examples are remotely as "interesting" as you're suggesting.

And in any case, even if we take the hypothetical route and say that there was a Gandalf-like class and one player could play a quasi-deity that is way more powerful than the others, that does not entitle every other player to the same level of power even if their character is not likewise a divine being. In fact, the idea of magical "chosen ones" is quite well-represented in fantasy fiction and in D&D (think Spellfire).

In short, the answer to your question of why not is that some combinations of the rules, the DM, and common sense say so.

Instead, ask the converse. If I can play someone who devoted his life to researching the mysteries of the universe, why should someone who is basically a mercenary thug be able to have the same impact on said universe as me?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In short, the answer to your question of why not is that some combinations of the rules, the DM, and common sense say so.

So becuse you say so?

Ok sorry I thought this was about makeing things possie but I guess that is only when you deem it ok

 

[Derren]

Able to at the table act like a musketeers minus the gun... Um fight with a distinct style and charm people and be a major asset to the team in and out of combat

Extra points if I can do something big and splashey

I would go for 13,15,14,18,10,14 and depending on your focus either a fighter or a rogue with maxed out diplomacy and tumble. As equipment of course the best light armor you can afford and a rapier or sword one handed. A hybrid of both classes would be perfect, but that is the weakness of class based systems and has to be fixed by multiclassing.

Ranger or Bard are also interesting classes but give you abilities which are a bit strange for musketeers (especially as I do not know which version of musketeers you mean. Hollywood or history?). Depending on the backstory Aristocrat is also possible.

A monk might actually also work very well when you go for a more hollywood like approach where you punch an enemy as often as you cut him. Although at higher level the monk gets several abilities which do not fit the concept very well.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So becuse you say so?

Ok sorry I thought this was about makeing things possie but I guess that is only when you deem it ok

If the DM (or the game writers) wants you to play a ridiculously exaggerated nonmagical character, the tools are all there. Just give someone better ability scores or a better starting level, really. That's what levels are for.

If the DM has given you an ability array and a starting level, and a rules system establishes parameters for using those to create a character, and the concept in your head is not achievable to your satisfaction using those constraints, I would say that the problem lies with the person whose idea doesn't fit inside the box, not the box.

And I have seen this play out. I'll give the players a mandate to make a character at level 1 with good but not godly ability scores, and they'll come back with a background that says "my character is the leader of the seven tribes, a fearsome warlord whose subjects bow down to his divine destiny". The answer is no. That's not what I told you to make. I told you to make a level 1 character.

Same thing for this daring swashbuckler deal.

 

[Bluenose]

In fact, the idea of magical "chosen ones" is quite well-represented in fantasy fiction and in D&D (think Spellfire).



Instead, ask the converse. If I can play someone who devoted his life to researching the mysteries of the universe, why should someone who is basically a mercenary thug be able to have the same impact on said universe as me?

Also non-magical Chosen Ones.

Because discovering the mysteries isn't the same as being able to do anything with them?

 

[Greg K]

A hybrid of both would be perfect, but that is the weakness of class based systems and has to be fixed by multiclassing..

In 3e, if a player wanted to be a Swashbuckler, I would use the customizing a character option from the PHB instead of multi-classing.

If going fighter, I would use the example given as a start for additional skill points per level,change the additional skills granted and swap the good save to Reflex .

If going with rogue, I would boost BAB and raise hit die to d8. Then, I would lower skill points and remove a few class skills (e.g, UMD). I would also use the Martial Rogue variant from Unearthed Arcana which trades Sneak Attack for Fighter bonus feats.

 

[ImperatorK]

If you want him to be competent then why don't you build him more competent than a charismatic rogue?

Because that's what a swashbuckler is?

Still no explanation why combat must be the biggest part of the game so that it dwarfs everything else.

If don't get it then I can't really help you there, bud. It should be fairly obvious that a game with 90% combat rules is about combat. >.>

 

[Derren]

Because that's what a swashbuckler is?

Since when are rogues known for winning duels?
You complain that the swashbuckler can win duels but at the same time you say that a swashbuckler is represented by a class which relies on the help of others in combat (flanking).

It would be good if you would also first define what you actually want like GMforPowergamer did.

If don't get it then I can't really help you there, bud. It should be fairly obvious that a game with 90% combat rules is about combat. >.>

I do not know about 4E, but in 3E the majority of rules was spells and feats which were not all combat. The combat chapter itself wasn't all that big actually.
And just because the rules subject cover one aspect a lot, doesn't mean that this aspect has to come up all the time.

 

[ImperatorK]

I still say that the swashbuckler is independent from stats. Its how about a character acts, and to fit into the genre, also what equipment he uses. How well he does so is independent of being a swashbuckler.

And then you tell me that I have to build a more competent character... >.> You're contradicting yourself.

 

[Derren]

And then you tell me that I have to build a more competent character... >.> You're contradicting yourself.

No, because you then suddenly stopped just wanting a swashbuckler, but also (or instead?) wanted a good duelist which are different things.