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

[Mistwell]

Actually he did say that D&D is about combat

No, he didn't, I quoted him for you in full, and I explained the difference between what he actually said, and that statement you just repeated. He said "D&D is primarily about combat."

For whatever reason you're choosing to ignore those differences, just like you cut the bulk of my post explaining that difference.

I challenge you to quote where he said "D&D is about combat". Find me that actual phrase, rather than your own paraphrasing of what he actually said.

 

[Derren]

I challenge you to quote where he said "D&D is about combat". Find me that actual phrase, rather than your own paraphrasing of what he actually said.

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. >.>

"a game with 90% combat rules" of course meaning D&D.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You can't have both, a game about combat and players playing the game correctly without combat.

1st the only wrong way to play D&D is the way that you don't have fun... it is what makes it different then any other game ever.

B the basic D&D rules are much more pointed toward combat (although less so with each edition...it is still a work in progress)

III Strip poker is a fun game (in less I'm losing... I'm a big guy, when I loose everyone loses) but it is not the way poker is designed to play. Someone playing strip poker follows some basic rules, but not all of them of basic poker.

Fourth In your experience do you believe that the game (Any D&D edition of your choice) was designed with the idea that most encounters would be Combat, Social, Exploration, or Other? When you look at the classes in that game, do they line up with most of there rules pointing toward one or all of these encounters?

 

[Mistwell]

"a game with 90% combat rules" of course meaning D&D.

Ah, now that is a quote I had not seen before.

OK, you're right and I am wrong. He did say that. Sorry for doubting you.

 

[Derren]

Fourth In your experience do you believe that the game (Any D&D edition of your choice) was designed with the idea that most encounters would be Combat, Social, Exploration, or Other? When you look at the classes in that game, do they line up with most of there rules pointing toward one or all of these encounters?

I believe that all D&D editions were designed with an emphasis on combat, some more (1E, 4E) and some less (2E, 3E). But I will never go so far to say that combat is the default way to play the game and that people who do not make that the primary focus are playing something not intended or otherwise "lesser" than "real" D&D.

And personally I believe that the future of D&D lies in embracing the non combat aspects even more instead of neglecting them in favor of tactical combat.

 

[Derren]

Sorry for doubting you.

Don't worry, more often than not you would be right.

 

[Minigiant]

D&D's rules is about 85-90% combat, 8-13% noncombat exploration and tool use, and 2% talking and interaction.

But you can easily take that 2% of interaction and talking rules in book and run with it for 12 hours in 3 sessions.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I believe that all D&D editions were designed with an emphasis on combat, some more (1E, 4E) and some less (2E, 3E).

well I agree with the basics I would group them different.

I personally see the beging of the skill system with non weapon profs (yea I know they said they wee optional but they were like the most used option.) I think 3e making the skill system was a HUGE leap forward, and the idea of skill tricks at the end were really great. the idea of feats (yes most were combat but not all) also helped when they really hit there stride was Book of 9 swords (yes I know how hated that book was thank you) when they gace these cool little things like scent or super jump and if that had some more non combat uses it would have been great...
4e took 1 step back with it's skills, but a HUGE leap forward with utility powers for all...and a small but signfacant step forward with skill challenges...

But I will never go so far to say that combat is the default way to play the game and that people who do not make that the primary focus are playing something not intended or otherwise "lesser" than "real" D&D.

I doubt anyone on enworld would argue that...

And personally I believe that the future of D&D lies in embracing the non combat aspects even more instead of neglecting them in favor of tactical combat.

If I could have a multi line sig I would sig that...in a heart beat. That is by far the best thing anyone has said in this thread yet.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I challenge you to quote where he said "D&D is about combat". Find me that actual phrase, rather than your own paraphrasing of what he actually said.

Honestly, I think the difference is rather semantic. Primarily about combat is pretty much the same as being about combat. Since his post was pretty much just an agreement with mine, to the point where he used my example of dancing in football, I can say that I don't think it matters if it is just primarily or completely about combat. It is still about combat.

Are there other aspects to the game? For sure. Just like there are other aspects to football other than just scoring. You sometimes need to worry about the cost of jerseys and recruiting the right people to play on the team. Those are aspects of football and important. However, when most people think about football, it is primarily a game about a team attempting to get a ball across a line. You can have fun playing football without ever scoring a point. Heck, you can forfeit every game by never showing up and simply enjoy dressing up in jerseys and calling yourself a football team.

Are you doing it wrong? Well, I'm sure some hardcore football fans would say absolutely yes. Those who are less competitive or simply don't care that much would say that you can do whatever you want to do, it's your team. If you're having fun who is anyone else to tell you what to do?

Sometimes the best things come out of someone "doing it wrong". So, I don't think it matters whether he said someone was playing it wrong. People on this board are too worried about someone calling something wrongbadfun. Playing it wrong can be just as much fun as playing it the "correct" way. It just isn't the same game at all.

That's the real problem and the key to understanding half the disagreements on the board. D&D isn't one game. It's now 20 different games played 20 different ways. The core game, I agree IS about combat.

 

[billd91]

D&D's rules is about 85-90% combat, 8-13% noncombat exploration and tool use, and 2% talking and interaction.

But you can easily take that 2% of interaction and talking rules in book and run with it for 12 hours in 3 sessions.

I don't think it really matters what proportion of the game's rules are about any particularly content. That indicates what aspect of the game needs more rules or the most tight control to be fair, not what the game is about.