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

[Remathilis]

Start here: and they say "Well I'm a swashbuckler that always gets the girl, I'm also really smart, able to fight things smarter not harder"
They roll18, 15,14,14,13,10

3.5: Human Swashbuckler3/Rogue3/Duelist-X, CG

Str 13, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 15, Wis 10, Cha 14 (First bump to Int, all other to dex).

Start as a Swashbuckler (free Weapon Finesse) with max ranks in Tumble, Balance, Jump, Perform, Bluff, and Sense Motive, and Dodge and Mobility your opening feats. Next level, take rogue (and buff up another skill: diplomacy with your remaining skill points). Alternate between swashbuckler and rogue until 6th level. Take Daring Outlaw (Complete Scoundrel - stack Swh/Rog levels for SA, Dodge and Grace) and then Take Duelist.

At an arbitrary 12th level, you would have a +16/11/6 with a mundane rapier, doing 1d6+4 +4d6 with his rapier (again, before magic). He'd have an untouchable reflex (+16 + evasion) and a +4 to AC without armor (akin to a chain shirt standing shirtless).

 

[Remathilis]

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

Robin Hood is currently whipping all thier asses.

 

[ImperatorK]

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 never said that.

And yet you have not provided a single argument why the rogue fits better.

I did, you just ignored it.

Speaking of ignoring. I warned you. I ask "stop with the strawmans". You didn't listen. So welcome to my ignore list.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

yea, I loved skill powers and I loved themes...

In fact the 5e backgrounds and specialist were a great combo...

by making skills based on your background instead of class meant my fighter could be a Sage, or a cut purse or a knight but so could my rogue or wizard...

in 4e I got a lot of milage out of themes as well...

 

[pemerton]

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.

In D&D there is no "how the character acts" independent of his/her stats! Unless you mean simply "the actions that the player declares". But in that case I can play a swashbuckler if my PC is a mage, or a 5 year old child: I just declare the action "I swing from the chandalier and run him through!" and it is irrelevant what my actual prospects of success are.

In my view, to state this proposition is sufficient to reveal its absurdity.

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

Yes, I noted this upthread - suggesting that Derren seemed to have changed his mind - but didn't get any very clear response.

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.

<snip>

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?

How does wanting to play a character who is both a competent fighter and a dashing rogue who wins the hearts of the lady suddenly get equated to playing "a mercenary thug" who nevertheless has the same "impact on the mysteries of the universe" as "a divine being"?

We're talking about playing a character comparable to Zorro, Robin Hood, Han Solo, D'Artagnan, etc. If other players get to play Merlin or Dr Strange, this only makes the desire to play Zorro all the more reasonable!

 

[pemerton]

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

What sort of city politics does not allow for initimidation? None that I've ever heard of!

 

[Ahnehnois]

We're talking about playing a character comparable to Zorro, Robin Hood, Han Solo, D'Artagnan, etc. If other players get to play Merlin or Dr Strange, this only makes the desire to play Zorro all the more reasonable!

Of course you can play those characters, and they can be good. But is Han Solo "balanced" with a Jedi master? No. And most of those characters are from setting that don't much resemble D&D, so it's hard to say how they would compare with a D&D spellcaster if they met one.

AFAICT, as long as one isn't overly concerned about equivalence with an unreasonable standard, D&D does those types of characters fine.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

We're talking about playing a character comparable to Zorro, Robin Hood, Han Solo, D'Artagnan, etc. If other players get to play Merlin or Dr Strange, this only makes the desire to play Zorro all the more reasonable!

Yea, I can see it now.

Player 1 "I want to play Robin Hood, someone who can shoot arrows true and be smart in the aristocrat circle and as a survivalist"
Player 2 "I want to play a Dashing Swordsman someone that can fight and be dashing and charismatic"
Player 3 "I want to play a type of cleric who not only has spells but also as good at nature or better then player one and have a free follower that can fight as well as player 2"
Player 4 "I want to play a spellcaster that can in theory learn huge amounts of reality WMDs and spells that will one day make me better then player 1 and 2 togather."

DM: "WHoa, I didn't know I had two such powergamers... how dare Player 1 and 2 make such broken characters..."

 

[Remathilis]

Of course you can play those characters, and they can be good. But is Han Solo "balanced" with a Jedi master? No. And most of those characters are from setting that don't much resemble D&D, so it's hard to say how they would compare with a D&D spellcaster if they met one.

AFAICT, as long as one isn't overly concerned about equivalence with an unreasonable standard, D&D does those types of characters fine.

But the problem with this is that it creates the "Wizard/Jedi/Timelord and his entourage" syndrome. Nobody likes to be useless. In a game where all PLAYERS are equal (aka no one player drives the plot like Harry Potter/Frodo/Luke) it becomes important that all characters can share the spotlight at least some of the time. D&D (and any RPG) goes off the rails when one character type is strictly better than all others.

While I don't think the balance bat needs to swing as hard as it did in 4e, I think the idea that "wizards are better than rogues, deal with it" is equally as unhelpful.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Of course you can play those characters, and they can be good. But is Han Solo "balanced" with a Jedi master? No.

too true... and that was why in Star Wars I would never let a level 5 scoundrel in the same game as a level X (I think master is 12 or 13) Jedi guardian or Jedi councilor...

I did find 1 GM made a good house rule that kept things sane... If you want to be a Jedi you have to start as a different class and take the force sensitive feat, and the Jedi classes were a special prestige class that the only requirement is "Find a Jedi or holocrone in game" and you could never take more levels in the jedi classes then 2/3 of your total...