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

[pemerton]

4e had a partial player-entitlement baked into the system.

<snip>

the player-entitlement to magical items was part of the core math.

I thought entitlements were things you were entitled to receive,

<snip>

A strict application of the original 4e treasure parcel system would be a player entitlement, as would 3e wealth-by-level, if treated as something the players are 'owed'.

I mentioned 4e treasure parcels in my post. But as far as "player entitlement" is concerned, it's hard to distinguish these from (say) proficiency gains per level in AD&D, or the increased ability to hit by level on the attack charts, which I never heard described as "player entitlement".

Is the basis for the distinction that the GM has a particular role in placing magic items within the world? But then that doesn't seem very different from (say) an AD&D paladin, ranger or monkt: these PCs have a duty to tithe and donate treasure, and hence if a player builds one then the GM has to provide enough detail about NPCs to allow the tithing/donation. Similarly in 4e, part of the PC build rules is a certain supply of items, which the GM has to provide some detail on (eg tell the players where they are found, or who supplies them).

I as a DM might give a player a castle or make him a deity, but that doesn't mean he was entitled to it.

A player in AD&D who gets his/her fighter or cleric to 9th level is allowed, by the rules, to build a castle and attract followers. A player in 4e who gets his/her PC to 21st level is entitled to take demi-god as an Epic Destiny.

In both cases these are just parts of the rules of the game, not fundamentally different from other parts of the PC build rules.

I happen not to like Rolemaster

Now that's just crazy talk!

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think that's fair. It assumes that everything that happens between A and B is unimportant. If the DM instead decides that the campaign will start at A and end at Z and all the other letters in between are up for grabs, that's a very different proposition.

Which on some level, is life. You're born and you die, and the only part you have even partial influence over is the part in between.

I also think that the polar opposite of railroading, the pure sandbox game, is quite a difficult proposition. Most people aren't going to think of anything that isn't a sandbox as a railroad; it's a spectrum rather than a dichotomy.

There is a lot of middle ground though. You can design adventures with multiple pathways in mind. You can also have a general sense of where you think the players may try to go, prepare for that, but then when they do deviate, you adapt on the fly and then prep in between for the next session based on what they do. There is also the possibility of the more limited sandbox, where you have an adventure in mind, but then within that advetnture they can go where they choose, when they choose.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm curious if you consider the numerous problems people had as far as legitimately challenging their PC's once they got in paragon and epic levels a form of "Monty Haul-ism"? Now traditionally a "Monty Haul" campaign has been when a DM handed out too much treasure and well pretty much the PC's became too powerful. Do you believe the rules can do this as well (if they place themselves in charge of this aspect as opposed to the DM?), and if not what do you think is the primary cause of so many people finding that they had to drastically exceed the game's encounter guidelines in order to offer any type of challenge to their players in these levels? I can kind of understand epic levels since I consider thos a special case (though I do think the math and expectations should still hold up)... but in paragon level should there be this type of disparity?

I think I conceptually understand what you're meaning. However, I'm not really sure if I'm fully aware of the issue that you're depicting. I think I can sort of ramble on this and you can let me know if I'm in the ballpark.

Of course I am aware the monster math (specifically damage expressions) was a bit borked and needed revision (and it received it). Secondarily, Solo design was initially pretty terrible and really manifested in mid-late Paragon tier when status condition/stun lockdown became a pretty easy power play to pull off. Perhaps the sort of issues that you're speaking of from mid-paragon tier and beyond took place before these revisions?

Beyond that issue, I can speak to a few things that serve to make late Paragon (specifically 17 onward) difficult for GMs to recalibrate their methodology (encounter budgeting and base difficulty):

1) PC Action Economy Growth.

More and more off-turn (immediates and frees) actions and Minor Actions are becoming increasingly available to PCs. The value of these abilities (especially when buffed with force multiplication and upward scaling damage) is extreme.

2) Pervasiveness of Action Denial or Punitive Status Effects.

That pretty much speaks for itself. By level 17, there are 10 available Encounter Attack Power "Stunned UtEoYNT" abilities available to various classes (Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Wizard). Blinded, Immoblize, Weakened, Restrained, et al are all also becoming increasingly available as well.

3) Force Multiplication.

Yup. 4e is definitely a team-based tactical affair when it comes to combat. X-Men meets Dungeons and Dragons and the "Fastball Special" keeps getting special...er. By level 16, PCs will have their capstone PP feature and that coupled with various other synergistic effects can make for brutal novas, enemy control, or lockdown combos.

PCs are also much more hardy as they have more access to effects that outright deny damage (Immediate Interrupts and/or Resistance). However, those 3 above have primacy IME.

However, GMs certainly have the tools to respond to these things. It just takes more and better understanding of said toolset (synergy between monster groups and battlefield features, force multiplication of hazards/traps + empowering runes/glyphs, punitive catch-22 auras, features that cancel or lessen major status effects, and great tactics generally) to pull off. There is no doubt that it takes a more skilled GM to manage the tactical overhead of late Paragon Tier 4e versus Early Heroic Tier 4e. Undoubtedly. However, the tools are in play to do so.

That being said, the encounter budgeting of 4e does get stressed by mid/late Paragon Tier. There is no doubt. It is infinitely more robust than ECL and CR (which I found to be solid up to 7, decent through 9ish, wobbly after 10, and totally ineffective by 13). You can usually go from a baseline of n (level) to n + 1 and feel confident in the predictability of outcomes.

By late Epic though, I'm probably putting that n + 1 to n + 3.

I do think I understand what you mean though about "the pervasiveness of default PC power and scaling force-multiplication" possibly being an analogue to "campaign disrupting magical items". I just think its pretty manageable just by using the tools in the system and getting better at your craft. I haven't had much, if any, problems with encounter building predictability until about level 27 or so. At that point, the game gets extremely swingy.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mentioned 4e treasure parcels in my post. But as far as "player entitlement" is concerned, it's hard to distinguish these from (say) proficiency gains per level in AD&D, or the increased ability to hit by level on the attack charts, which I never heard described as "player entitlement".

Is the basis for the distinction that the GM has a particular role in placing magic items within the world? But then that doesn't seem very different from (say) an AD&D paladin, ranger or monkt: these PCs have a duty to tithe and donate treasure, and hence if a player builds one then the GM has to provide enough detail about NPCs to allow the tithing/donation. Similarly in 4e, part of the PC build rules is a certain supply of items, which the GM has to provide some detail on (eg tell the players where they are found, or who supplies them).

Now that's just crazy talk!

My preference as a GM and as a PLayer for treasure placement has always been to lean heavily on random treasure tables, but to use judgment when it makes sense (for example if you build a dungeon that was made for a particular item, it probably ought to be there, or have been there at some point). But I really like being surprised by what comes up in a random treasure horde, and I like adapting to what pops up as a player. one thing that never sat well with me in 3E (and no idea how this compares to the methods used in 4E as I am not very familiar with that edition) were all those magic item wishlists players started using. To me, and again this is mainly as a player, since as a GM it really wasn't affecting my enjoyment of the game, wishlists took a lot of the mystery and exploration out of it.

 

[the Jester]

A player in AD&D who gets his/her fighter or cleric to 9th level is allowed, by the rules, to build a castle and attract followers. A player in 4e who gets his/her PC to 21st level is entitled to take demi-god as an Epic Destiny.

In both cases these are just parts of the rules of the game, not fundamentally different from other parts of the PC build rules.

Well, I'd say that one difference is that in 1e, you get the opportunity but must do the work to build that stronghold. In 4e, you just plain get your epic destiny.

But I don't think that fits my idea of "player entitlement" anyway; I'm talking about things where a player feels entitled to something that isn't explicitly on the advancement table for his class(es)- magic items/wealth by level is the perfect example, IMHO.

 

[Hussar]

Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a for...

Wargame-y dungeoncrawling.

But, if that's where DnD started, who are you to come forward and tell us we are doing it wrong?

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, if that's where DnD started, who are you to come forward and tell us we are doing it wrong?

I do not recall having said that.

 

[the Jester]

I don't think that's fair. It assumes that everything that happens between A and B is unimportant. If the DM instead decides that the campaign will start at A and end at Z and all the other letters in between are up for grabs, that's a very different proposition.

We'll have to agree to disagree here; to me, if the ending is predetermined, everything else IS unimportant (from the standpoint of an adventure, anyhow). The ability to affect the outcome is the most frustrating aspect of railroading (IMHO). It's all about removing agency from the players.

Let's say the adventure is Defend-the-Town-Against-Giants. If the DM knows that, no matter what, the adventure ends with the town successfully defended and all the giants dead, he's not allowing the pcs agency. What if they make a deal with the giants that requires the town to sacrifice a dozen sheep each month? What if they bribe the giants to move? What if, instead of fighting the giants at all, they turn on the town and make themselves its petty tyrants before stripping it of its wealth and leaving it for dead?

What if they fall for the first trap and have terrible luck and the giantish guards, by the dice, slay them all?

Better still, what if they just leave the town behind, seeking some other adventure?

To me, if the pcs are robbed of their ability to make meaningful choices, not only in HOW to approach the adventure but also in WHETHER to bother in the first place, the DM has overstepped his bounds. That isn't up to him.

Most people aren't going to think of anything that isn't a sandbox as a railroad; it's a spectrum rather than a dichotomy.

This is very true, and where you draw the line between them very much depends upon playstyle preference. Personally, I favor a much more classic style sandbox, both as a player and a dm.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But I don't think that fits my idea of "player entitlement" anyway; I'm talking about things where a player feels entitled to something that isn't explicitly on the advancement table for his class(es)- magic items/wealth by level is the perfect example, IMHO.

I think it could relate to content over that is in the tables, too.

For example, given the original title of this thread, if a player playing a rogue expects that his combat abilities should be the same as those of the fighter, even though the rogue concept is not itself as pertinent to the topic, that's an entitlement.

 

[pemerton]

Things like "come and get it" detract from my D&D experience not because they represent player entitlement, but because they cannot be logically explained as character actions, but only as shared narrative control.

I personally find this claim radically overstated.

It may be true if the fighter who uses the power is a knife-fighter surrounded by unarmed children.

But in my game, at least, the fighter who uses this power is generally wielding a halberd or huge war mallet, and is surrounded by aggressive combatants. Come and Get It typically represents the character's ability to best his opponents in weapon play and footwork.

I fail to see how this improve a story game.

<snip>

While 4E does a lot of things better than DW, I don't believe any of those things is related to be played as a story game.

For me, at least, this tends to reinforce the unhelpfulness of the notion of "story game".

4e is what it is. It has abstract, scene-based non-combat resolution rules, but its combat resolution rules are not very abstract as far as positioning and movement are concerned. This mixing of mechanics gives rise to some technical problems in playing and adjudicating the game (being discussed at the moment on the fighters vs spellcasters thread), but there is nothing that is in-principle inconsistent with wanting to combine this approach with a player driven, thematically-focused game.

In fact, the opposite can be true. [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] can indicated whether or not this is the sort of thing he has in mind in talking about "kinaesthetic play", but in my own experience the resolution of a dramatic rescue can be made more visceral, in play, via the use of non-abstract positioning and movement mechanics.