Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Balancing D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7444922" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Dismissive edition warring? ;P</p><p></p><p>Seriously, though, the Capn has not been shy about is 3.5/PF pedigree. So you're way off base.</p><p></p><p> Well, try playing it for 10 years and get back to us when you know what you're talking about.</p><p></p><p> That's actually critical to such 'crunchiness,' because if you don't know what you're going to get for sorting through all the chaff & trap choices in your crunchy-system-mastery-rewarding game, all that crunch is meaningless. You might as well just let the DM tell you a story, from that perspective.</p><p></p><p>In 3.x/PF, the DM had this 'Rule 0' dangled in front of him, promising him some latitude in how he ran his game, but, in practice, with a RAW-obsessed fan-base, dismissive of house rules and willing to argue any ruling to death, the mechanics - the consensus on what RAW said about them, ruled the day. And, again, that was critical to the RAW/'build'/optimization culture that surrounded the game. </p><p></p><p>Of course, 'balance' had nothing much to do with it - the point was extracting all the best, most imbalanced bits. But asking for greater imbalance would probably draw even more acrimony.</p><p></p><p>Sadly they're really bad at both those things. The baseline fighter has one fairly minor self-heal (starts nice, but doesn't keep up), heavy armor proficiency, and, on average, +1 hp per level to "not die." It has nothing (except, well, doing damage, but you don't consider that their thing) to divert attention from the spellcasters (every class casts spells in at least one sub-class, but we get the idea). OTOH, before sub-class even comes into it, the fighter gets more Extra Attacks than everyone else and Action Surge to double those attacks 1rnd/rest, and sure, plenty of high-damage weapons to choose from, for DPR. Barbarians and Rogues (the other two classes that use weapons and have some sub-classes that don't cast spells - ie 'martials'), similarly, have their major combat features (SA & rage) pointed straight at DPR. </p><p></p><p>Now, a Paladin does use weapons, and can be pretty good at protecting allies - in addition to the same armor, weapons & hps as the fighter, he has healing he can use on himself or allies, and an aura that boosts his & ally's saves. And all paladins cast spells, of course, so they're among "the spellcasters," themselves, rather than "the martials" (or they're "divine gish" if you want, I suppose). </p><p></p><p></p><p>Not that DPR is a great way to try to keep a class relevant, by itself. IMHO/X, when you try to get by with just DPR, you end up either under-contributing (yeah, you're grinding things, but so's everyone, if not quite as hard, and your efforts don't stand out), or over-powered (wow, that's just too much damage, you powergaming GWM, you). </p><p></p><p>He's really talking more 'defender,' which 5e barely nods to. 'Tank' is much more 5e-plausible, and how the fighter 'defended' back in the day. The lynchpin of the Tank function: high DPR. With no 'aggro' or marks or anything, you need to just hit the enemy so hard they don't dare ignore you. The fighter, sufficiently optimized for DPR, should be well-able to do that, and maybe even be tough enough to stand up to the consequences for a round longer than the next guy.</p><p></p><p>Well, you can criticize them. But the more constructive thing to do is very often for the DM to adjust the campaign to avoid the problem, rather than trying to address that critique. So, while I admit that /just/ volunteering that you have no problem so it must be a DM problem is non-constructive, presenting campaign strategies that might ameliorate intractable issues with the system can be at least as constructive as pointing out those issues (though, really, after 44 years, both the issues and the campaign-tweaking solutions are pretty broadly known).</p><p></p><p>Zapp could just dial up encounters, drop the odd OP magic item on anyone who didn't take an OP enough build, and ditch xp so that those hugely overleveled encounters don't kick advancement into overdrive. Compared to trying to line-item-veto and amend D&D into a neatly balanced/playable game with a wealth of meaningful/viable choices and a dearth of 'traps' or chaff to sort through, that'd just be orders of magnitudes easier.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7444922, member: 996"] Dismissive edition warring? ;P Seriously, though, the Capn has not been shy about is 3.5/PF pedigree. So you're way off base. Well, try playing it for 10 years and get back to us when you know what you're talking about. That's actually critical to such 'crunchiness,' because if you don't know what you're going to get for sorting through all the chaff & trap choices in your crunchy-system-mastery-rewarding game, all that crunch is meaningless. You might as well just let the DM tell you a story, from that perspective. In 3.x/PF, the DM had this 'Rule 0' dangled in front of him, promising him some latitude in how he ran his game, but, in practice, with a RAW-obsessed fan-base, dismissive of house rules and willing to argue any ruling to death, the mechanics - the consensus on what RAW said about them, ruled the day. And, again, that was critical to the RAW/'build'/optimization culture that surrounded the game. Of course, 'balance' had nothing much to do with it - the point was extracting all the best, most imbalanced bits. But asking for greater imbalance would probably draw even more acrimony. Sadly they're really bad at both those things. The baseline fighter has one fairly minor self-heal (starts nice, but doesn't keep up), heavy armor proficiency, and, on average, +1 hp per level to "not die." It has nothing (except, well, doing damage, but you don't consider that their thing) to divert attention from the spellcasters (every class casts spells in at least one sub-class, but we get the idea). OTOH, before sub-class even comes into it, the fighter gets more Extra Attacks than everyone else and Action Surge to double those attacks 1rnd/rest, and sure, plenty of high-damage weapons to choose from, for DPR. Barbarians and Rogues (the other two classes that use weapons and have some sub-classes that don't cast spells - ie 'martials'), similarly, have their major combat features (SA & rage) pointed straight at DPR. Now, a Paladin does use weapons, and can be pretty good at protecting allies - in addition to the same armor, weapons & hps as the fighter, he has healing he can use on himself or allies, and an aura that boosts his & ally's saves. And all paladins cast spells, of course, so they're among "the spellcasters," themselves, rather than "the martials" (or they're "divine gish" if you want, I suppose). Not that DPR is a great way to try to keep a class relevant, by itself. IMHO/X, when you try to get by with just DPR, you end up either under-contributing (yeah, you're grinding things, but so's everyone, if not quite as hard, and your efforts don't stand out), or over-powered (wow, that's just too much damage, you powergaming GWM, you). He's really talking more 'defender,' which 5e barely nods to. 'Tank' is much more 5e-plausible, and how the fighter 'defended' back in the day. The lynchpin of the Tank function: high DPR. With no 'aggro' or marks or anything, you need to just hit the enemy so hard they don't dare ignore you. The fighter, sufficiently optimized for DPR, should be well-able to do that, and maybe even be tough enough to stand up to the consequences for a round longer than the next guy. Well, you can criticize them. But the more constructive thing to do is very often for the DM to adjust the campaign to avoid the problem, rather than trying to address that critique. So, while I admit that /just/ volunteering that you have no problem so it must be a DM problem is non-constructive, presenting campaign strategies that might ameliorate intractable issues with the system can be at least as constructive as pointing out those issues (though, really, after 44 years, both the issues and the campaign-tweaking solutions are pretty broadly known). Zapp could just dial up encounters, drop the odd OP magic item on anyone who didn't take an OP enough build, and ditch xp so that those hugely overleveled encounters don't kick advancement into overdrive. Compared to trying to line-item-veto and amend D&D into a neatly balanced/playable game with a wealth of meaningful/viable choices and a dearth of 'traps' or chaff to sort through, that'd just be orders of magnitudes easier. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Balancing D&D
Top