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

[FrogReaver]

How about a quote that states:

Know that imbalance is actually bad. The first thing that I think everyone has to do is to internalize the idea that balance is good, and imbalance is bad. I've actually heard people try to argue that a little bit of imbalance is necessary for a fun game. Not only do I disagree, but I think that they don't even really believe that. Someone who says this is simply failing to see one of two factors:

1. Like I stated earlier, there are sometimes elements that seem imbalanced when looking at one level of scope, but when looking at the whole picture are actually in balance.

2. That a game can be "fun" whether or not it's balanced -- the word "fun" is a notoriously crappy metric. Anything "can be fun" with the right attitude -- flicking a dust-ball around on the floor, brushing your teeth, anything.

If a game is fun despite being imbalanced, that's great, but do not make the mistake of thinking that it's fun because it's imbalanced.

-Keith Burgun

I think of action RPGs. Part of the fun is trying different combinations and seeing what works better. You cannot do that with perfect balance. There must be some imbalance or every choice is just as effective.

 

[Pedantic]

The structure of 4E, the pursuit of and approach to balance over everything else was one of the reasons I ultimately burned out on 4E.

That's different from stating "It's a fact that balance is bad" that is the foundation of these "fighters drool" arguments.

But feel free to link to actual quotes. If there are any, I will disagree with them as well.

This is that thing that drives me bonkers, where balance becomes just a stand-in way to refer to 4e. Conceptually, trying to assign relatively equal mechanical impact to all classes is a fine and sensible goal; 4e's issues mostly arise from its other design goals, notably trying to freeze the gameplay loop at a slim level range for the whole of the progression, hard separating combat/non-combat player interaction with the world, and adapting a universal resource/progression system. 5e didn't even abandon all of those design goals; bounded accuracy is an attempt to do the first one by different means.

There's no particular benefit to assigning uneven impact between fundamental player choices, and adopting or not adopting that as a design goal will not get you to 4e by itself.

 

[Minigiant]

The structure of 4E, the pursuit of and approach to balance over everything else was one of the reasons I ultimately burned out on 4E.

That's different from stating "It's a fact that balance is bad" that is the foundation of these "fighters drool" arguments.

But feel free to link to actual quotes. If there are any, I will disagree with them as well.

It's a common misconception that for a pursued balance over everything.

The main focus of 4E was to provide gameplay that matched what 4E players thought D&D should play like. Fighters be tanks. Wizards having AOE. Rogues dealing high damage. Clerics being good but not Godzilla.

The balance was creating that started play.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's no particular benefit to assigning uneven impact between fundamental player choices, and adopting or not adopting that as a design goal will not get you to 4e by itself.

I think it goes both ways. There’s no benefit to making the most unbalanced game imaginable. Likewise I don’t think there’s any benefit to making a perfectly balanced game.

I’d lean much more toward balance than imbalance, but a bit of imbalance seems good.

I would say high level wizards and fighters are too imbalanced but that the goal should be more balanced not perfectly balanced.

 

[Oofta]

This is that thing that drives me bonkers, where balance becomes just a stand-in way to refer to 4e. Conceptually, trying to assign relatively equal mechanical impact to all classes is a fine and sensible goal; 4e's issues mostly arise from its other design goals, notably trying to freeze the gameplay loop at a slim level range for the whole of the progression, hard separating combat/non-combat player interaction with the world, and adapting a universal resource/progression system. 5e didn't even abandon all of those design goals; bounded accuracy is an attempt to do the first one by different means.

There's no particular benefit to assigning uneven impact between fundamental player choices, and adopting or not adopting that as a design goal will not get you to 4e by itself.

The pursuit of balance as a primary design goal and their approach to achieving it is one of the (many) factors that ultimately meant that 4E was not for me. If balance was as important to people as some seem to believe we wouldn't have 5E because 4E placed much more emphasis on the appearance of balance. There would have been no need for a 5E, or at the very least they would have kept a similar approach.

They didn't focus on the appearance of balance for 5E and the game took off in spite of it. Sometimes the proof is in the pudding.

 

[Minigiant]

The pursuit of balance as a primary design goal and their approach to achieving it is one of the (many) factors that ultimately meant that 4E was not for me. If balance was as important to people as some seem to believe we wouldn't have 5E because 4E placed much more emphasis on the appearance of balance. There would have been no need for a 5E, or at the very least they would have kept a similar approach.

They didn't focus on the appearance of balance for 5E and the game took off in spite of it. Sometimes the proof is in the pudding.

Again. The pursuit of balance was not the main goal of 4e. It was to enforce playstyle.

The issue is enforcement of playstyle usually required killing sacred cows.

 

[Oofta]

Again. The pursuit of balance was not the main goal of 4e. It was to enforce playstyle.

The issue is enforcement of playstyle usually required killing sacred cows.

I disagree. Role-based party composition was one foundation but the other was balance. Role-based party composition as the default, even if it is not spelled out directly, is still a major focus of 5E.

 

[Minigiant]

I disagree. Role-based party composition was one foundation but the other was balance. Role-based party composition as the default, even if it is not spelled out directly, is still a major focus of 5E.

Role based play was the priority. Getting the fighter to tank and the cleric to buff others was the goals.

4e wasn't even very focused on balance. It was just more focused than other editions.

That was the key difference between 4e and most other additions. 4e actually focused on creating the classes and monsters that play like they said they play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Role based play was the priority. Getting the fighter to tank and the cleric to buff others was the goals.

4e wasn't even very focused on balance. It was just more focused than other editions.

That was the key difference between 4e and most other additions. 4e actually focused on creating the classes and monsters that play like they said they play.

Or at least very narrow interpretation of that…

 

[Pedantic]

The pursuit of balance as a primary design goal and their approach to achieving it is one of the (many) factors that ultimately meant that 4E was not for me. If balance was as important to people as some seem to believe we wouldn't have 5E because 4E placed much more emphasis on the appearance of balance. There would have been no need for a 5E, or at the very least they would have kept a similar approach.

They didn't focus on the appearance of balance for 5E and the game took off in spite of it. Sometimes the proof is in the pudding.

That simply doesn't follow. If you took 4e and redid the abilities with an eye toward theme over impact, and didn't stick to the core of DPR and accuracy math it leaned so hard on, you would have produced an even less popular product. It's quite a jump to assume 5e's most salient feature is a lack of interclass balance.

You're lumping a bunch of design goals together under the heading "balance."