ImperatorK
First Post
I dunno about Rogues, but swashbucklers are assumed to be good fencers.
Flanking isn't the only way to gain sneak attack. Also I said nothing about winning duels.
I want a swashbuckler.
Show me where I said that. SHOW ME.
D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)
- Thread starter XunValdorl_of_Kilsek
- Start date
Halivar
First Post
Those feats and spells were almost overwhelming more about combat than anything else. Non-combat is sprinkled like potpourri throughout. The game is about dungeons and dragons, and I daresay trying to run a non-combat game with it is using the wrong tool for the job. There are other games that do a much better job of dramatic non-combat games than D&D, and D&D does not need to be those games, because those games already exist and have their niche.
ImperatorK
First Post
Um, no they're still the same. I didn't change what I want in the slightest.
Actually you did when you complained that the swashbuckler can't win pemertons made up duel and that this is what defines him.
Define swashbuckler.
Apart from that you just spewed out random names like "D&D" and "Player Handbook" as evidence that combat must overshadow everything else in D&D.
Last edited:
ImperatorK
First Post
No. What I actually was "complaining" about is that he can't fight. I said nothing about any duels.
Someone good in a fight who's witty, agile, outspoken, resourceful, ladies man. Think of Zorro, Robin Hood or The Three Musketeers.
Must. That word. I don't think I ever said anything like that. You, my friend, are arguing against a strawman. That explains a lot. Get back to me when you get your arguments in order.
Ahnehnois
First Post
For the record, D&D is not about combat. We had that soiree a while ago. I guess you in the 30% can continue your dissent if you really want to, but that is not the prevailing view here on ENW and the arguments have already been made in thorough.
ImperatorK
First Post
That's supposed to prove... what exactly? That people play D&D in different ways? That's great! Has nothing to do with what I said.
So you do not accept the ways many other people play D&D as valid because it is not about combat?
Actually it was all about pemertons duel and you said that this was what defines swashbuckler.
Now only also say what you accept as "good in a fight".
And I see nothing in there which requires the rogue class, yet you insist on it...
ImperatorK
First Post
You really should stop that. The strawmans and putting words in peoples mouths, I mean. If you keep on with it I will be forced to conclude that discussion with you is a waste of time and put you on ignore.
No. You said fight, not duel. I responded to you, not Pemerton. And I meant it in general, as in "competent at (whatever) defines him" (which fighting is a part of), which is exactly what I said, nothing more, nothing less.
Wins more often than not, given a fair fight.
I don't insist on it, it's just better for the flavor.
Last edited:
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
[MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION]
I am curious your reaction to this statement.
In the earlier versions of D&D, wizards were powerful enough to to compete with any other class of PC. In concept, it was supposed to be that the use of magic would not be so great as to make those using it overshadow all others, but in practice it did not work out as planned. Primarily the fault is the game itself which does not carefully explain the reasoning behind the magic system. Also, the various magic items intended for wizards tend to make them too powerful in relation to other classes.
The logic behind it all was drawn from game balance as much as from anything else. Fighters have their strength, weapons, and armor to aid them in their competition. Wizards must rely upon their spells, as they have virtually no weaponry or armor to protect them. Clerics combine some of the advantages of the other two classes. Thieves have the basic advantage of stealthful actions with some additions in order for them to successfully operate on a plane with other character types. If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D & D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly, or the DM is forced to change the game into a new framework which will accommodate what he has created by way of PCs. I think the most desirable game is one in which the various character types are able to compete with each other as relative equals, because that maintains freshness in the campaign
Your thoughts, [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION]?
I am curious your reaction to this statement.
In the earlier versions of D&D, wizards were powerful enough to to compete with any other class of PC. In concept, it was supposed to be that the use of magic would not be so great as to make those using it overshadow all others, but in practice it did not work out as planned. Primarily the fault is the game itself which does not carefully explain the reasoning behind the magic system. Also, the various magic items intended for wizards tend to make them too powerful in relation to other classes.
The logic behind it all was drawn from game balance as much as from anything else. Fighters have their strength, weapons, and armor to aid them in their competition. Wizards must rely upon their spells, as they have virtually no weaponry or armor to protect them. Clerics combine some of the advantages of the other two classes. Thieves have the basic advantage of stealthful actions with some additions in order for them to successfully operate on a plane with other character types. If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D & D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly, or the DM is forced to change the game into a new framework which will accommodate what he has created by way of PCs. I think the most desirable game is one in which the various character types are able to compete with each other as relative equals, because that maintains freshness in the campaign
Your thoughts, [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION]?
