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

[FrogReaver]

I don't think there can be RPG that is balanced regardless of how it is run, that nonetheless can be ran on myriad different ways, unless you homogenise the characters massively. The characters will have capacities usefulness of which will depend on the situation they find themselves in. So in effect the "power" of the character will be different depending on the frequency of situations that their capabilities are optimal for.

This 100%

 

[Aldarc]

No, it is perfectly balanced. It just is terrible game.

Are you really the same person who wrote this all so long ago:

I think quite a few people here cannot separate them not liking how the game works from the game being badly designed. That one doesn't like it is not proof that it is badly designed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are you really the same person who wrote this all so long ago:

Yes. The game I deemed "terrible" was one where there is literally no choice. No agency whatsoever. I think it is relatively universally accepted that players having at least some agency is desirable in game design. Do you disagree?

 

[Oofta]

That certainly seemed to be the implication from your post here and often elsewhere. I sometimes get the feeling that you make appeals to popularity as a means to silence criticism of the game or any improvements/changes that other people may desire for the game. This is to say, there's no need to balance or improve the game because the game is already the most popular game and the fighter is the most popular class.

There is no objective measurement of whether or not classes are balanced. There is no objective measure of whether the majority of players feel that there is a significant issue with balance. In my completely subjective opinion and the feedback of players in every group I've played with over the past 9 or so years is that there is no significant issue with balance in 5E.

The only objective data we have is what classes people choose to play and I think it's reasonable to draw some conclusions based on that data. If you want to read into that something I did not state that's not my issue.

 

[Aldarc]

There is no objective measurement of whether or not classes are balanced. There is no objective measure of whether the majority of players feel that there is a significant issue with balance. In my completely subjective opinion and the feedback of players in every group I've played with over the past 9 or so years is that there is no significant issue with balance in 5E.

The only objective data we have is what classes people choose to play and I think it's reasonable to draw some conclusions based on that data. If you want to read into that something I did not state that's not my issue.

So other people's subjective opinions about how the imbalance is negatively affecting their enjoyment of the game is just as valid as your belief that there is nothing wrong.

 

[Oofta]

So other people's subjective opinions about how the imbalance is negatively affecting their enjoyment of the game is just as valid as your belief that there is nothing wrong.

Did I say that? Let me double check ... nope. No product ever produced works for everyone.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is no objective measurement of whether or not classes are balanced. There is no objective measure of whether the majority of players feel that there is a significant issue with balance. In my completely subjective opinion and the feedback of players in every group I've played with over the past 9 or so years is that there is no significant issue with balance in 5E.

The only objective data we have is what classes people choose to play and I think it's reasonable to draw some conclusions based on that data. If you want to read into that something I did not state that's not my issue.

Computer games often run into issues balancing between the average player and the more hardcore players. What’s balanced for 1 isn’t for the other. It’s a safe assumption that this is the case ttrpg’s as well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, it is perfectly balanced. It just is terrible game.

See, that's why I find the definition of balance that includes maximizing player choice more useful that whatever unstated definition of balance you're using that deem a terrible, choiceless game somehow 'balanced.'

What is that definition, BTW?

I simply don't agree with your definition of balance. Yes, having multiple choices is good game design, but that is not balance.

Thus the requirement those choices be both meaningful and viable.

A game with three equally viable choices is just as balanced than a game with 78 equally viable choices.

I mean, the latter is /better/ wouldn't you agree?

The latter is probably a batter game, but not because it is more balanced, but because it offers more agency.

A better balanced game will tend to offer more agency.

Yet the cost it took to get even there was too much for many. So why was this sort of balance important again?

The cost of balance is less imbalance, honestly. Complaints about 'how a system is balanced' typically boil down to some of the choices seeming less meaningful - which means it's not actually as well-balanced as it could have been.

It simply limits what way you need to run the game if you desire balance. And you must always balance around some assumption.

If you layer too many restrictions on a system to 'balance' it, you're effectively reducing player choices again, which means you're not balancing it, you're just working with the imbalances it presents. It's similar to taking an imbalanced system with a number of non-viable choices, and just excising those choices. The result is a smaller game that wastes less space and avoids offering 'traps,' but it's still not any better-balanced, because it isn't providing any /more/ choices that are both meaningful and balanced than it did before.

That's another thing useful about this definition, it recognizes that banning or otherwise removing choices is not as good a solution as fixing choices that are non-viable or render other choices non-viable.

I don't think there can be RPG that is balanced regardless of how it is run, that nonetheless can be ran on myriad different ways, unless you homogenise the characters massively.

Making choice of character meaningless would be self-defeating if you're trying to get a better balanced game.

Perfect balance, is impossible, of course, so trivially it's true that you cannot balance a game for an infinite number of possible ways it might be run.
But improvement is always possible. 5e, for instance, might be balanced in a game that consisted of little more than time-important, 6 or so encounter 'days' consisting almost entirely of combat vs enemies the party outnumbers. That's /very/ narrow. Balance in every conceivable campaign might be unattainable, but balance in more than just /that/ is not too much to ask, indeed, balance in the mode of play surveys show to be the most common 1-3 encounter days, would seem prudent...

The characters will have capacities usefulness of which will depend on the situation they find themselves in. So in effect the "power" of the character will be different depending on the frequency of situations that their capabilities are optimal for.

With 'viable' as the bar rather than optimal, that's not an impractical thing to work towards. D&D traditionally fails very badly at establishing any sort of balance across campaigns with different emphasis because it makes some classes very flexible and others more highly specialized. Fighting Man and Thief, very specialized, Cleric, less so but forced into healing primarily, Magic-User as flexible as his spell list. Casters in general and wizards in particular have become ever more versatile as the game evolved ("changed slowly over time," 'k? Developed. Whatever), while non-casters have at times become even more specialized.
Classes (if a game goes with them at all) can be differentiated without being given functions so limited and inflexible that they might sit out sessions, or theoretically, even whole campaigns. When they aren't you have "the netrunner problem" which, of course, is a failure to balance classes....

 

[Aldarc]

Did I say that? Let me double check ... nope. No product ever produced works for everyone.

You certainly give that impression with everything else that you say.

 

[ECMO3]

Thus the quotes around wrong. It's not wrong to play what you want, but if your character under-contributes because it is mechanically inferior, it's bad for the whole party, and even for the campaign making it harder on the DM. It's not wrong, but because the game is imbalanced, it's 'punished.' (There are those quotes again: as in, it has negative consequences. Not as in it's meant to correct an unacceptable behavior.)

You aren't punished though. I play fighters. I play Rogues A LOT. I am not "punished" for doing that. There are no negative consequences at all to being less powerful or as you put it "mechanically inferior" than other players at the table. And if I don't want to be mechanically inferior I can just play another class.

Further luck, especially when it comes to your initial ability score rolls contributes quite a bit to being stronger and weaker.

What would punish me is forcing me to play a Barbarian or a Druid .... even though a Druid is a full caster and not "mechanically inferior"

There can certainly be instances where a player wants an inferior or under-contributing character, but a balanced game would allow that to be done advisedly, and without dictating that only certain general concepts could be that way D&D-like games already have level as well as class, so, even in the nearly unprecedented case of balanced classes, a player intentionally wishing for an inferior character in a group and with a DM both willing to work with that, could simply play a lower level PC than everyone else.

You can do that advisedly already through class and subclass selection. When you pick a class and subclass you purposefully choose the mechanics that go with it, and if those don't suit other options are available.

What you can't do is remedy poor ability rolls. Those are locked in and beyond the control of the player make some players inferior and some superior.

If you choose to play a Champion Fighter, or any Monk you are intentionally choosing to play an inferior character as compare with other choices you could make (assuming level 5+).

I find this whole argument Bizarre. People choose what they play.

That is increasing imbalance. What you are saying, and you're not wrong, is that sub-classes are imbalanced within each class.

And that is what makes them great! I don't want balanced subclasses.

Each choice the game presents must be balanced with it's alternatives. Races should be balanced with other races, classes with other classes, sub-classes with other sub-classes w/in the same class. IMO

Putting aside for a moment that this is not possible, it is also would not be fun. Some of the races published in VGTM and later publications are by and large objectively superior to the earlier races and they are overwhelmingly popular. People LOVE playing these new races.

Yet you are arguing that the game would be better if Shaddar Kai and Eladrin were balanced against other Elves, if Goblins were not better than every small race in the PHB etc.

People LOVE the imbalanced races.

Imbalance tends to make imbalance worse. Class, especially as you level, is by far the most significant choice you make for your character. Classes are imbalanced. Sol, yes, an inferior class may well benefit 'more' from choice of race or feet or background - in a relative sense, since it has less going for it, any improvement is bigger proportionally.

It is not inferior classes that benefit more, it is non casters specifically, which are inferior at some levels and superior at others.

It is a bizarre feature of 5e that no class doesn't cast spells, yes.

Your last post you suggested that the fact people did not want fighters to be supernatural was part of the problem, here you suggest it is bizzare that fighters can cast spells (i.e. do something supernatural)

None the less, the issue of D&D making non-supernatural characters profoundly inferior remains, with the handful of non-supernatural sub-classes being inferior to their supernatural counterparts.

Exactly as it should be. If you want to play a character with supernatrual abilities, play a character with supernatural abilities. IF you don't then don't, but recognize you won't be supernatural if you purposefully play a character that is not supernatural.