D&D 5E What is balance to you, and why do you care (or don't)?

[Lanefan]

Because it's something cool for Fighters to do. Anyone can attempt to break things (I would likely use the generic Defy Danger or Defend moves, depending on the player's goal, or maybe Hack & Slash if the goal is offense-oriented). This is just a little something more that befits a Fighter. Other playbooks get their own stuff.

To turn the questions back on you: Why does everything have to be something everyone can do, unless it's magic?

In part because I want a world where even a commoner with no class abilities at all can still have a small chance of being useful during an adventure...or even where a whole party of non-levelled commoners can try their hand at adventuring and maybe make something out of it.

Why can't there just be specialized skills only some people pick up? You seem to be arguing that literally all people are able to do all physical activities and that's just ridiculous, so I feel like I have to be missing something in your argument.

Yes, I'm arguing that all people can at least try all physical abilities and that in many cases adventuring skills might have no bearing on the odds. In D&D, no class has any special ability to bend bars/lift gates; so depending on the DM's ruling it's either open for anyone to try or nobody can do it. Making Fighters better at it as a class feature is a good idea, but in no way do I want that to negatively affect everyone else's odds of success.

Obviously, 'try' might be as far as some ever get for some abilities or actions that are simply beyond them, but that's also true of PCs.

I suspect on a broader scale I just don't see - and don't want to see - adventurers (whether PCs or not) as being all that special or all that far removed from the common populace, particularly at low and even into mid levels. They're just braver.

Further: if you don't have a Fighter in your game, you can just straight-up take Bend Bars, Lift Gates as a multiclass move if your playbook offers one that allows you to take a move from any other class. (As noted, DW strongly and very wisely recommends NOT doubling up playbooks in a single group, because it WILL feel very samey. If I had a player who wanted something like this move but tailored to a different playbook, I would work with them to develop something.)

I don't care if two people are playing characters who are mechanically exactly the same. I expect those players (including myself, if I'm one of them) to find ways of making those characters different through roleplay and personality.

Yeah, this dilutes the benefit to the point that it's not actually something I can accept anymore. I want things that are special about being a Fighter. They don't have to be PERFECT DO-EVERYTHING moves. Just something special that makes being a Fighter genuinely actually different from being whatever else. Having "you get +30% to Basic Moves" is both INCREDIBLY boring (like...that's straight-up what SO many people constantly pitched a fit over in 4e, that there were too many boring numeric bonuses) and gives me, if anything, negative feeling that the Fighter is something distinct from other things--it doesn't just not stand out, it actively tries to not stand out.

Then we will never see eye-to-eye on this. I want Fighters to have something, (almost) anything, that is genuinely actually unique to them and not just generically available to anyone. As noted above, there can be much more loosey-goosey "well, this more or less fits" options for non-Fighters. But Fighters (and, separately and individually, Rogues, Barbarians, Monks, etc.) need to have things that really are special about being what they are. Otherwise they're literally big piles of actively trying to have nothing notable.

Monks already have lots of things that are unique to them, so they can come out of this discussion.

Barbarians - well, I've never really seen much point to the class in any case.

Rogues and Fighters, being non-magical and - like it or not - being closer in scope to the mundane common folk than any other classes, don't really do anything different than other people, they just do it (sometimes a very great deal) better. I mean hell, I could pick up a sword and swing it at someone, but given my utter lack of sword skill I'd likely just make a fool of myself. A trained Fighter is just better at it - by leaps and bounds - than I am.

What's unique to Fighters is - or should be - just how much better they are or can be at fighting than anyone else. Ideally things like weapon focus, specialization, and so on should only be open to Fighters; and more than that, only open to single-class Fighters. (side note: I think many things should only be open to single-class characters, to discourage multi-classing and particularly to discourage "dipping"; but that's a whole other issue)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Have you seen the three Spider-Man movies for the MCU? He spends a fair amount of time with other high school kids.

what movies could I POSSIBLY be talking about if not the Ironman JR MCU ones?

 

[Micah Sweet]

what movies could I POSSIBLY be talking about if not the Ironman JR MCU ones?

I don't know if that's sarcasm or not, though I suspect it is and don't see what you're trying to accomplish with it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't know if that's sarcasm or not, though I suspect it is and don't see what you're trying to accomplish with it.

well you asked me if I had seen the 3 MCU movies... but I had said "most recent" and "with avengers" when I can't remember a movie with him and AN avenger before them... so I was being sarcastic cause I assumed you didn't read my post you responded to

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Have you seen the three Spider-Man movies for the MCU? He spends a fair amount of time with other high school kids.

okay non sarcastic answer... what high school kids Ned and MJ? Ned becomes his 'guy in the chair' so he can be a kind of side kick and MJ bearly appeared in the first movie and in the second was the love interest. Flash Thompson has about as much in the way of screen time in the 3 movies combined as most early months of peters comics, and he spends the 1st movie talking about or dealing with Iron man, second movie moarning iron man and dealing with Nick Fury* and third movie is an ansamble multiverse/spider verse movie that you could cut Ned and MJ from and only loose 1 good important scene.

 

[Micah Sweet]

okay non sarcastic answer... what high school kids Ned and MJ? Ned becomes his 'guy in the chair' so he can be a kind of side kick and MJ bearly appeared in the first movie and in the second was the love interest. Flash Thompson has about as much in the way of screen time in the 3 movies combined as most early months of peters comics, and he spends the 1st movie talking about or dealing with Iron man, second movie moarning iron man and dealing with Nick Fury* and third movie is an ansamble multiverse/spider verse movie that you could cut Ned and MJ from and only loose 1 good important scene.

I don't see what their narrative role in the story has to do with the fact that all of those people are ordinary humans with no special abilities or training with whom Peter interacts fairly regularly. He also spends time in the high school setting doing student stuff. Spider-Man is not a professional super hero in the way that, say, Steve Rogers is. He is a student (or some form of journalist) with a personal life and an overdeveloped sense of responsibility.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't see what their narrative role in the story has to do with the fact that all of those people are ordinary humans with no special abilities or training

the fact that you don't know what a narrative role has to do with how characters interact blows my mind... there narrative role is HOW they interact.

He also spends time in the high school setting doing student stuff.

a little bit but not much, and most likely most people watching the film would not relate to the school or the school activities (how many people went to high funded specialty schools that have trips to Europe and science teams going to the capitol)

Spider-Man is not a professional super hero in the way that, say, Steve Rogers is.

right... I agree with the general idea, but not the execution... what did peter deal with like an everyman in any of his movies?

He is a student (or some form of journalist) with a personal life and an overdeveloped sense of responsibility.

normally, not in the 3 MCU movies though

 

[Willie the Duck]

post #289

Post #291

What about, as a compromise, fighters (or other non-magical, non-commoners) get 'can do better/faster/with-fewer-restrictions', rather than 'can do so with 30% greater chance of success?' In 5e, anyone can attempt to disarm, trip, or push/grapple. Various feats or battlemaster maneuvers let one do so as a bonus action, or as part of an attack (thus not having to trade-off with damage-dealt. This is actually a fairly healthy benefit, and people generally don't do these actions in most scenarios if they have to sacrifice their main action (or an attack) to do so. Why not apply this logic to OOC activities? Fighters can BB/LG in preternaturally short periods of time, or as part of another action, or more quietly, or without penalty while inconvenienced (Rangers already have that in various editions in various ways), or the like?

Fundamentally, I don't think you'll ever see eye-to-eye. EzekialRaiden finds 'everyone can do anything a fighter can, but not everything a wizard can' to be a fundamental stumbling block, while Lanefan does not. I personally think it depends on goals, but agree that the disparity is a source of imbalance-concern within the game.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I've never interpreted the fact of the class having those abilities precludes anyone else from ever trying them; only that their odds of success would be much lower than those of a character who did have those class abilities.

Sure, when anyone with arcana skill proficiency can try and cast a spell, I think that's fair.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

As in: wear any armour, be proficient with any weapon, be far better at hitting and hurting in-your-face foes, be tougher to kill or disable - that sort of thing?

Wizards have been made too good at melee combat over the editions, no question there; so why not dial this back (e.g. via smaller hit dice, cannot cast in melee, few or no weapon proficiencies, etc.), rather than try to boost warriors to compensate?

A fighter - or any character, for that matter - is only lame if you-its-player play it that way.

Fighter's hit just as well as anyone else, since they arent even allowed to get a higher proficiency bonus than the guys who study magic. For all that vast fighter training, they aren't any better at using a dagger than a wizard with the same stats. Harder to kill/disable? He has one of the worst save setups so 1 more HP/level doesn't really cut it.

Valor Bards wear armor, get 2 attacks, cast full spells, get a ton of USEFUL abilities, etc. Apparently magic is sooo easy to learn that the bard can get almost all of the fighter's stuff, a massive amount of bard stuff, more skills, expertise, AND full casting!

Face it, the fighter is the equivalent of the Arby's shift manager that peaked in highschool. Fighters suck.