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

[Derren]

then we can all have things to do and all play the characters we want...

And yet when the campaign spends the first 5 levels in a megadungeon with no non combat contact you will have an imbalance between the fighter and the rogue as you would have when you spend several session in a city where is it all about politics which do not allow for intimidation and with no combat at all.

No matter how well you balance the classes you will have imbalances in actual play.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think a new player to D&D which was the premise would know that.



70s was Chainmail, or? That was only about combat.
And wasn't it Arneson and not Gygax who at first expanded upon this framework?

It was about OD&D I believe. I disagree that OD&D was only about combat.

I do think Gygax thought combat was an important factor for D&D throughout his life. For example, from well-after AD&D came out:

"Melee in AD&D is certainly a crucial factor...As melee combat is so common an occurrence during the course of each adventure, brevity, equitability, and options must be carefully balanced."

He talks about balance a lot actually. Like this quote on racial limits and it's role in balance:

"The character races in the AD&D system were selected with care. They give variety of approach, but any player selecting a non-human (part- or demi-human) character does not have any real advantage. True, some of those racial types give short-term advantages to the players who choose them, but in the long run, these same characters are at an equal disadvantage when compared to human characters with the same number of experience points. This was, in fact, designed into the game. The variety of approach makes role selection more interesting. Players must weigh advantages and disadvantages carefully before opting for character race, human or otherwise. It is in vogue in some campaigns to remove restrictions on demi-humans — or at least relax them somewhat. While this might make the DM popular for a time with those participants with dwarven fighters of high level, or eleven wizards of vast power, it will eventually consign the campaign as a whole to one in which the only races will be non-human. Dwarves, elves, et al will have all the advantages and no real disadvantages, so the majority of players will select those races, and humankind will disappear from the realm of player character types. This bears upon the various hybrid racial types, as well."

My bottom line point is that focusing on combat in this thread does not equate with a belief that non-combat aspects of the game are unimportant. People have repeatedly asked that you stop inferring that. At this point, I am asking, do you just think people are lying to you when they say they don't believe that?

 

[Dausuul]

How is this unending argument about Doctor Who, Frodo, and Jack Sparrow still going?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

lets focus on non combat 1st (only because combat is the only thing you seem to think anyone cares about)

what if all rogues had a list of 4-10 things they could do like **Fast talk** make a check to make someone do something as long as it isn't against there base nature or **hide in plain sight**

then the fighter got 4-10 things they could do like **Gibs' slap** remove a condtion but deal 1d4 damage to an ally or **Intimadating smile**

That would be really good for the game. Even 4e made little effort to balance the exploration and social pillars (although most classes had at least a few utility powers to contribute to each area). It's hardly possible to build a rogue or ranger with fewer exploration abilities than, say, a bard or fighter.

 

[ImperatorK]

So you first specifically deny that only your game is about combat and that it is a "D&D thing"

Because D&D is primarily about combat. 90% D&D rules are for combat. How can you not get that simple fact?

And then you say that people can run games however they want, including a game not about combat.

Well, yeah.

Your own words and all the faulty logic in them

There's zero faulty logic in my words, only you constructing strawmans.

I was discussing the made up duel with pemerton when you injected yourself into it.

Um, no. I commented on a specific thing you said.

You could for example make a charismatic fighter if you want a better combatant, but no. Its a rogue.

I want a swashbuckler. Fighter sucks as a swashbuckler. Hell, Fighter sucks even as a fighter. Rogue is just better, flavor-wise. He only sucks at combat.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That would be really good for the game. Even 4e made little effort to balance the exploration and social pillars (although most classes had at least a few utility powers to contribute to each area). It's hardly possible to build a rogue or ranger with fewer exploration abilities than, say, a bard or fighter.

yea I thought the idea of 4e utility powers were great...atleast in theory.

in practice most of the fighter ones were combat ones anyway... self healing, AC boost, extra movies, that sorta thing.

I wish we had a list of generic utility powers anyone could take then a list of ones for classes, and less then half of the ones for classes had to be non combat things then you could gimp yourself by playing a "Dumb Fighter" or you could play a well rounded one...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

View attachment 60136

shoot... I think that was me at work all day... (Yes every post up till the last one was done at work on my phone)

 

[Halivar]

(Yes every post up till the last one was done at work on my phone)

GMfPG, we're gonna need you to report to the Bobs for a little interview, okay?

 

[Balesir]

I wish we had a list of generic utility powers anyone could take then a list of ones for classes, and less then half of the ones for classes had to be non combat things then you could gimp yourself by playing a "Dumb Fighter" or you could play a well rounded one...

There were generic (all class) utility powers in Themes and Skill Powers. Just as a heads-up.

 

[Derren]

There's zero faulty logic in my words, only you constructing strawmans.

Sorry to break it for you, but first vehemently saying that it is not just your game which is about combat but instead it is a D&D thing and then saying that it is not a D&D thing as people can play it without combat focus is faulty logic.

I want a swashbuckler. Fighter sucks as a swashbuckler. Hell, Fighter sucks even as a fighter. Rogue is just better, flavor-wise. He only sucks at combat.

And yet you have not provided a single argument why the rogue fits better. So what now? You say a rogue build as swashbuckler is not good enough at fighting, yet a fighter is no swashbuckler because of some undisclosed reason.