Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 6091603" data-attributes="member: 3424">I think the individuals' definition of balance really goes to the heart of this discussion and is the reason for the apparent disconnect which has caused this thread to just keep going. My fundamental premise is that in the ideal situation, there should be nothing that would bias the selection of one character class over another apart from the preference of the player. In other words, the other players at the table should be indifferent whether someone chooses to play a fighter or a cleric. Before we go any further, let me acknowledge that some groups like to "cover all the bases", and ensure that there is at least one fighter, one rogue, one wizard and one cleric in each party. I am not presenting a scenario in which there are four players in a campaign, three have already decided to play the fighter, the rogue and the wizard, and so the fourth "has to" play the cleric. I am looking at a scenario in which all the bases are already covered (say, there are five players and the party will "double up" on one class) or it is impossible to cover all the bases (there are only two or three players). In such circumstances, in my ideal system, none of the classes would be considered more "essential" than any of the others.So, in order for that to occur, there must be at least relative disadvantages to offset any advantage that a class brings to the party. My personal preference is for each class to be able to contribute relative equally (altough not identically) to the resolution of each challenge. So in combat, a rogue may be able to kill the opponents quickly, reducing the attacks they make against the party and hence, the damage dealt to the party. A fighter might be able to encourage the enemy to attack him instead of more vulnerable party members, reducing the damage dealt to the party. If a cleric were to replace the fighter or the rogue, he would not be able to reduce the damage dealt to the party, but he would be able to heal it later. So, in terms of the party's overall combat endurance, it doesn't matter whether someone chooses to play a fighter, a rogue or a cleric.Now, others have mentioned that a cleric should ideally increase the party's combat endurance. It seems to me that if the addition of a cleric increases a party's combat endurance by more than the addition of a fighter, a rogue or a wizard, either the cleric is more powerful than those other classes, or the cleric has a relative disadvantage in some other area compared to these classes. My question was whether those who proposed that the addition of a cleric should increase the party's combat endurance by more than the addition of any other character class were willing to accept that the cleric should be more powerful than any other class, or, if not, how they would balance this advantahge. (For example, if there are combat, interaction and exploration pillars in an adventure, and the cleric contributes more than the fighter in the combat pillar, then it probably should contribute less than the fighter, and by an approximately equal amount, in the interaction or exploration pillars for it to be considered balanced.)</blockquote>

Verification