D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[jmartkdr2]

Not quite. I’m saying why doesn’t imbalance of itself (at least over a certain degree) indicate a problem that needs fixed. Why do you feel it’s contingent on whether people play the class or not?

Because the point is to play and have fun. Not to be balanced.

 

[jmartkdr2]

So you're saying making the stronger and more flavorful classes less so will increase their popularity?? I agree!

Honestly, kinda.

I find players want flavor in the PHB to inspire, not to dictate.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because the point is to play and have fun. Not to be balanced.

Both! Why not both! It’s not like a class is less fun if it’s more balanced with others - barring super symmetrical balance attempts.

 

[Tony Vargas]

(I should share a definition of balance that I encountered that I've found helpful
A game is better balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both meaningful and viable.)

I still don’t see how that proves a problem in the first place -we have a game with imbalanced classes

The point is just that the game has imbalanced classes. The reasons that could be bad in a cooperative game are myriad and have often been belabored in the past.

But, whether it's a 'problem' is more a matter of point of view. Imbalance is not a problem for a game producer if it does not demonstrably harm revenue. It's not a problem at a particular table if no one takes an over- or under-powered class (or if everyone takes either all one or all the other - it could be a problem for the DM re-balancing challenges to match), because you're playing a "balanced" sub-set by eliminating choices (which is not actually better-balanced, just more up-front about it). It's not a problem to system masters who optimize the best possible choices for maximum power (OK, it may be, if it's too extreme) - or knowingly optimize a bad choice for the challenge (unless, again, it's just unsalvageable). It's not a problem for a player who happens to choose an OP class and enjoys playing an OP character - which may be a problem for other players at the same table. It's not a problem for players at a table where the DM goes above and beyond to fix/mask/compensate for balance problems (tho it's an added burden on the DM, some DMs can handle it).

So, yeah, there are cases where imbalance may not be perceived as a problem. In most of those cases, balance wouldn't be a problem, either. System masters for instance, relish optimization in a better-balanced system (with as many or more choices than a comparable imbalanced system), even tho the gross rewards are smaller, the challenge can be more engaging. Players who would normally all gravitate to sub-sets of choices that avoid imbalance have the full set of choices available, instead. The player's at the great DM's table won't notice a difference, tho the DM may be a bit relieved. About the only ones left out are those who just pick OP options on a whim and are happy to be OP.

Because the point is to play and have fun. Not to be balanced.

Balance facilitates that. Balanced choices give each player a better chance of playing what they want, without overshadowing others or under-contributing.

Both! Why not both! It’s not like a class is less fun if it’s more balanced with others - barring super symmetrical balance attempts.

Balance doesn't always fail by presenting meaningful but non-viable 'trap choices' or overpowered choices. It can also fail by offering meaningless choices. "Are you a member of the Wizards of the Aubergine Order or the Purple Sages of the Royal Palace?" What's the difference? " The color of your robe..."

 

[Micah Sweet]

(I should share a definition of balance that I encountered that I've found helpful
A game is better balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both meaningful and viable.)

The point is just that the game has imbalanced classes. The reasons that could be bad in a cooperative game are myriad and have often been belabored in the past.

But, whether it's a 'problem' is more a matter of point of view. Imbalance is not a problem for a game producer if it does not demonstrably harm revenue. It's not a problem at a particular table if no one takes an over- or under-powered class (or if everyone takes either all one or all the other - it could be a problem for the DM re-balancing challenges to match), because you're playing a "balanced" sub-set by eliminating choices (which is not actually better-balanced, just more up-front about it). It's not a problem to system masters who optimize the best possible choices for maximum power (OK, it may be, if it's too extreme) - or knowingly optimize a bad choice for the challenge (unless, again, it's just unsalvageable). It's not a problem for a player who happens to choose an OP class and enjoys playing an OP character - which may be a problem for other players at the same table. It's not a problem for players at a table where the DM goes above and beyond to fix/mask/compensate for balance problems (tho it's an added burden on the DM, some DMs can handle it).

So, yeah, there are cases where imbalance may not be perceived as a problem. In most of those cases, balance wouldn't be a problem, either. System masters for instance, relish optimization in a better-balanced system (with as many or more choices than a comparable imbalanced system), even tho the gross rewards are smaller, the challenge can be more engaging. Players who would normally all gravitate to sub-sets of choices that avoid imbalance have the full set of choices available, instead. The player's at the great DM's table won't notice a difference, tho the DM may be a bit relieved. About the only ones left out are those who just pick OP options on a whim and are happy to be OP.


Balance facilitates that. Balanced choices give each player a better chance of playing what they want, without overshadowing others or under-contributing.

Balance doesn't always fail by presenting meaningful but non-viable 'trap choices' or overpowered choices. It can also fail by offering meaningless choices. "Are you a member of the Wizards of the Aubergine Order or the Purple Sages of the Royal Palace?" What's the difference? " The color of your robe..."

First of all, balance does take more work, and if imbalance isn't a problem for a game design business (not just a game designer) if it doesn't affect revenue, then the business has no motivation to put in the work to create that balance (see: WotC).

Secondly, balance and fun are not inextricably linked. More balance does not necessarily equal more fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

First of all, balance does take more work,

It does take a lot more design work. Or talent, or both, I suppose. Discipline, too, probably, I expect. Really quite daunting if you think about it.
But, it saves work for the DM (who needn't try to compensate for wild swings in individual PC or party effectiveness) and players (who need less system mastery to make a viable character).

and if imbalance isn't a problem for a game design business (not just a game designer) if it doesn't affect revenue, then the business has no motivation to put in the work to create that balance (see: WotC).

Secondly, balance and fun are not inextricably linked. More balance does not necessarily equal more fun.

Facilitate wasn't meant to imply inextricably linked.
And fun, of course, is subjective, and relative, and... well...
... fun can be had at the expense of others' fun...
If anything, balance is a compromise strategy, present players with meaningful, viable, choices and they have a better chance of playing the character they want, how they want, without ruining the experience for anyone else.

 

[ECMO3]

Okay sure, but different does not and IMO should not mean the same thing as better or more powerful/useful

It doesn't and should not mean it shouldn't be more powerful either.

I think the current imbalance is quite good and appreciated by most players.

I also don't think Wizards are generally more powerful than the better fighter subclasses at the levels where the game is usually played.

They absolutely are more powerful at very high and arguably they are more powerful at very low levels, but at very low levels Rangers, Clerics, Druids and your better Rogues are ahead of all of the other classes.

In levels 3-8 though they aren't more powerful than the better fighter subclasses, and that is where most games are played.

 

[ECMO3]

Given this we can assume that the popularity of a class has to do with things other than balance.

Yes but it is just as easy to assume that imbalance itself is popular.

 

[Scribe]

Yes but it is just as easy to assume that imbalance itself is popular.

Not at all. It may be easier for those of us who are invested to believe this, but its far easier to assume that the vast majority do not care at all or do not even perceive such an imbalance to exist.

 

[ECMO3]

There's a faint echo of that in the Paladin & Ranger vs the Fighter class has more Combat Styles than either of them IIRC the Paladin & Ranger divide the available styles between them. So in the old way of thinking the fact a Fighter can get Archery style and a Paladin can't is a balancing factor on the Paladin... but the reality is each individual picks a style. If a Fighter picks Archery he still faces close comparison to the Ranger with Archery.

I don't really buy this because all 3 of these classes have unique fighting styles not available to the other classes (technically the fighter-specific styles that are available through a feat to any class ..... at a very high cost).