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

[Tony Vargas]

Again, to be clear what I mean when I say balance: A game is better balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both meaningful and viable.

The question is supposedly how to change it to achieve this "balance" some players want and the relevant point in this discussion is that it is A LOT more about advancing the aesthetic THOSE INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS want than it is about actually achieving balance

On the contrary, opposing balance could be about forcing the game into a narrow aesthetic, because imbalance limits worthwhile player facing options, marginalizing the resulting PCs even if players opt for them in support of their preferred concept.
Limiting player choices can make sense, in support of the genre or themes of a game or campaign, but presenting imbalanced choices is a poor way to do so, especially if that includes trap choices. Simply not presenting inappropriate choices is much simpler.

Conversely, balance supports more player choices. It's essentially a mechanism of compromise that allows players who want somewhat different things from their characters or from the play experience to play together without ruining the game for eachother. (Of course, perfect balance isn't achievable, so that really only means a better chance of achieving those things.)

5e moved pretty close to not offering martial options, at all, in the PH, with every class able to access spells in some way under some sub-class, but did offer 5 (or 6 depending on how you feel about Ki), specific sub-classes that did not. Since they're presented to players as equivalent choices (there's no 'cost' to choosing EK or Bladesinger, nor consolation prize for choosing Champion or Thief), they should be balanced as such.

 

[Micah Sweet]

On the contrary, opposing balance could be about forcing the game into a narrow aesthetic, because imbalance limits worthwhile player facing options, marginalizing the resulting PCs even if players opt for them in support of their preferred concept.
Limiting player choices can make sense, in support of the genre or themes of a game or campaign, but imbalance is a poor way to do so, especially if it's a form of imbalance, like D&D's, that includes trap choices. Simply not presenting inappropriate choices is much simpler.

Conversely, balance supports more player choices. It's essentially a mechanism of compromise that allows players who want somewhat different things from their characters or from the play experience to play together without ruining the game for eachother. (Of course, perfect balance isn't achievable, so that really only means a better chance of achieving those things.)

5e moved pretty close to not offering martial options, at all, in the PH, with every class able to access spells in some way under some sub-class, but did offer 5 (or 6 depending on how you feel about Ki), specific sub-classes that did not. Since they're presented to players as equivalent choices (there's no 'cost' to choosing EK or Bladesinger, nor consolation prize for choosing Champion or Thief), they should be balanced as such.

Only from a game design perspective, which is not the way WotC is looking at it.

Guess what they are prioritizing?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Only from a game design perspective, which is not the way WotC is looking at it.
Guess what they are prioritizing?

Like TSR after the fad flopped & control had passed from creative types to corporate types, they are surely prioritizing revenue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like TSR after the fad flopped & control had passed from creative types to corporate types, they are surely prioritizing revenue.
But I'm not so sure TSR ever prioritized game design - maybe that's what EGG was thinking with 1e in '78-79? At least, from the discussions about balance and play in the 1e DMG, it seemed to be a consideration.

They certainly prioritized creativity, and world design.

 

[Tony Vargas]

They certainly prioritized creativity, and world design.

Pushing out setting material was, like, the industry-standard way to wring revenue out of an RPG in the 90s. See also Storyteller, which challenged D&D for leadership in that period.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Pushing out setting material was, like, the industry-standard way to wring revenue out of an RPG in the 90s. See also Storyteller, which challenged D&D for leadership in that period.

Yeah, and? I value setting material very highly. I'm quite sad that standard has gone away, and those who want setting material are mostly forced to sift through current offerings for the good stuff.

If setting material was not prioritized back then, I would likely have never gotten heavily involved in the hobby. 2e and the games that followed its setting-heavy lead was the golden age of the industry for me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, and?

And it was about prioritizing revenue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And it was about prioritizing revenue.

Well obviously the way they did that back then aligned much more closely with my preference than the way they do it now.

 

[ECMO3]

Again, to be clear what I mean when I say balance: A game is better balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both meaningful and viable.

On the contrary, opposing balance could be about forcing the game into a narrow aesthetic, because imbalance limits worthwhile player facing options, marginalizing the resulting PCs even if players opt for them in support of their preferred concept.

Exacrtly, that is why I am against feat prerequisites. There are many, many worthwhile player facing options in 5E.

Limiting player choices can make sense, in support of the genre or themes of a game or campaign, but presenting imbalanced choices is a poor way to do so, especially if that includes trap choices.

I disagree here, more choices is never bad, if people want to always choose "powerful" choices they can do that, but most players purposely and knowingly make choices that are not optimal, and that is not a bad thing.

Simply not presenting inappropriate choices is much simpler.

Who decides what is inappropriate? Let the player decide what is appropriate and not appropriate for their character.

Conversely, balance supports more player choices. It's essentially a mechanism of compromise that allows players who want somewhat different things from their characters or from the play experience to play together without ruining the game for eachother. (Of course, perfect balance isn't achievable, so that really only means a better chance of achieving those things.)

IME striving for balance for balance sake itself hurts the game. I know that position is not universal, but there is no evidence at all that balance itself will make the game better for a majority of players, nor that you will have a better chance of having an enjoyable experience for most players.

I get that it may be true for some players and at some tables, but I think that is a minority.

5e moved pretty close to not offering martial options, at all, in the PH, with every class able to access spells in some way under some sub-class, but did offer 5 (or 6 depending on how you feel about Ki), specific sub-classes that did not.

So if balance makes a game better, and if we agree that non-casters are underpowered, does that mean the game would be better if they did not offer non-caster options at all so the options you could choose were more balanced?

Since they're presented to players as equivalent choices (there's no 'cost' to choosing EK or Bladesinger, nor consolation prize for choosing Champion or Thief), they should be balanced as such.

I don't get this argument. IF you want to play a champion, play a champion, if you want to play an EK play an EK. Both are there, both are viable and neither will relegate you mechanically to a specific or less substantial role. IF that happens it is not because of class and subclass, but rather because of luck, table dynamics or other purposeful build choices.

I personally don't like Champions, but others have had fun at tables I play with Champions. I do like Thiefs and I have had fun playing a Thief, although I like Arcane Tricksters better.

The "cost" to chooisng an EK is you can't play a Champion if you want to play a Champion and the consolation prize to playing a champion is playing what you want.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There are many, many worthwhile player facing options in 5E.

If you like casting spells, sure.

D&D is an imbalanced game. In 5e, "the martial/caster gap' is a notorious manifestation of that. In prior editions it was called "LFQW."

I disagree here, more choices is never bad, if people want to always choose "powerful" choices they can do that, but most players purposely and knowingly make choices that are not optimal, and that is not a bad thing.

There's a difference between optimal and viable. In a balanced game, a choice being arguably optimal (typically for a specific purpose) does not render other choices non-viable. In an imbalanced game it very easily can.

Who decides what is inappropriate?

The designer deciding what genre of TTRPG he's going to create, and the GM deciding on the setting & themes of his campaign. The designer chooses what to include, and the GM what to ban.

Let the player decide what is appropriate and not appropriate for their character.

That's what balance does, maximizes the choices available to the player that are both meaningful and viable. Whether another player in 4e thinks the Warlord's abilities are appropriate or not, a player who does find them appropriate could choose it, and play it without overshadowing other players or under-contributing to the success of the party.

IME striving for balance itself hurts the game.

How? What do you mean "hurts the game?"

I think it's clear to see how imbalanced choices, like trap options, hurt the game, both in the sense of making it a worse game, and in the sense of detracting from play experience. How does, for instance, making a former trap choice viable harm the game?

Of course, trying, and failing, to balance a game can make it even more imbalanced. For instance, over-compensating for a too-weak option could make it so OP that it renders multiple other options non-viable. Removing options instead of balancing them is partially self-defeating - there /will/ be less options - tt only has a shot at improving balance when you remove a relatively small number of OP options, making many-more previously non-viable options worthwhile again. Balancing an OP option has the same benefit, and retains the option.

For instance, in 5e, it would be fruitless to toss out full casters, even if it might make some martial choices more viable, because there are so many of them, the gain of a few newly-viable choices isn't worth the loss of many overall choices.

Conversely, removing martial options is a small decrease in overall choices, and just removes traps, the game isn't much improved, but it's being more honest with itself.

Nerfing casters might be a lot of work, since there are so may of them. Buffing martials to the heights of casters in 5e or 3e would mean making them far more powerful/versatile than ever before.

I know that is not universal, but there is no evidence at all that balance itself will make the game better for a majorty of players, nor that you will have a better chance of having an enjoyable experience for most players.
I get that it may be true for some players and at some tables, but I think that is a minority.

You're free to believe that. There is absolutely no evidence it is the case.

I don't get this argument. IF you want to play a champion, play a champion, if you want to play an EK play an EK. Both are there, both are viable and neither will relegate you mechanically to a specific or less substantial role.

Champion does relegate you to a more specific, less substantial role than EK or BM, which deliver similar DPR and geater versatility - and, both of which, in turn, fall short of what a full caster will open up for you.

The "cost" to chooisng an EK is you can't play a Champion if you want to play a Champion and the consolation prize to playing a champion is playing what you want.

Correct, the choice of EK or BM or Chamipion - and, back at 1st Fighter or any other class - are equally weighted, the only 'cost' of taking one is not taking the other. If you play a wizard, you received the same 'consolaton prized' - playing the class that's closest to the concept you wanted to pay - as if would someone playing the Champion. There's nothing to justify either class being better or worse than the other.