Unpopular opinions go here

[overgeeked]

5e is. Probably 3.x and 4e too. But I don't think that's particularly true of TSR editions.

Absolutely fair.

 

[CleverNickName]

Terrible class balance: casters are just better than non-casters.

Meh class balance: everyone’s mathematically equal.

Amazing class balance: rock-paper-scissors, i.e. you can trounce someone and someone else can trounce you.

Ideal class balance:
I don't really care if the Fighter can trounce the Cleric, who can trounce the Wizard. They're supposed to be trouncing the giant spiders I've scattered all over the forest, each in their own unique ways and with varying degrees of intensity.

 

[Reynard]

The focus on "balance" (which is actually a concern about parity) between broad player character categories (such as classes) is wrong-headed and misses the point. It assumes that the G is the most important part of RPG, which probably has never been true for more than a relatively small portion of gamers.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I don't subscribe to.the notion that everyone needs to be equally capable in combat, because combat shouldn't be the primary focus of play.

Not equal, but my groups tend to view that the ability to fight to some degree is required of every PC, except healers. But I expect that is because similar expectations are what holds the group together. Its not a universal notion, but I would say it is a common one.

 

[Jd Smith1]

The focus on "balance" (which is actually a concern about parity) between broad player character categories (such as classes) is wrong-headed and misses the point. It assumes that the G is the most important part of RPG, which probably has never been true for more than a relatively small portion of gamers.

Exactly. I abandoned balance long ago.

 

[Guest 7042500]

5e is. Probably 3.x and 4e too. But I don't think that's particularly true of TSR editions.

In OD&D the writeup for Charisma is the most extensive for the stats, and the rules for dealing with henchmen much more than the combat rules.

But it's a myth that will not die.

 

[Jd Smith1]

The Zweihander magic system is the only magic system I've had at my table in quite a few years, mainly because fantasy has been losing its appeal. It worked out very nicely; the list of spells was lean and utilitarian, mainly combat. To use magic, you rolled to see if you were successful in gathering enough of the Winds of Magic, and if you succeeded, you cast the spell.

If you were not successful, bad things happened. How bad depended on the roll and how much power you were trying to gather, but it started with 'no more magic for X time' on up to 'chaos beasts appear, lusting after your chitlins'.

So the lean list made sense: it consisted of minor spells who power draw was so low the worst the user might get is no magic for X minutes, and combat spells.

So the wizard tended to hang in the background with a bundle of javelins, pondering whether the direction of the fight warranted a combat spell.

 

[overgeeked]

Ideal class balance:
I don't really care if the Fighter can trounce the Cleric, who can trounce the Wizard. They're supposed to be trouncing the giant spiders I've scattered all over the forest, each in their own unique ways and with varying degrees of intensity.

At a guess, you don't spend much time playing the less than awesome classes.

The focus on "balance" (which is actually a concern about parity) between broad player character categories (such as classes) is wrong-headed and misses the point. It assumes that the G is the most important part of RPG, which probably has never been true for more than a relatively small portion of gamers.

No, not the most important, only that it is important. If some options are just out-and-out better than others, that's bad game design.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Everyone is also not a mage in Ars Magica, and the expectation is that you will have zero to one mages in actual play at any one time.

On the other hand, there's only a limited amount Companions can do that the mages couldn't do one way or another, and--I'm sorry, but grogs are very much meatshields. So I'm going to kind of stand by my position. And that may be the expectation, but I'll promise you I've heard plenty of AM groups that went out with a grog or two and the rest mages.

If D&D had a similar restriction on how many characters could use spells in a party and every player was expected to rotate characters between adventures, that would help. But again, a huge change to D&D and, after a certain amount of changes, you're probably better off just playing Ars Magica.

And some people would probably fight it tooth and nail.

 

[CleverNickName]

At a guess, you don't spend much time playing the less that awesome classes.

Hard to say. My last character was an Abjurer, and I'm told that is one of the worst to play. Before that, I played a Hexblade, and I'm told it's one of the most powerful. I honestly didn't notice much difference between the two; they both seemed to play about the same for me but nobody believes me when I say that.