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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.
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="Rod Staffwand" data-source="post: 6461829" data-attributes="member: 6776279"><p>As I understand it, the facts are these:</p><p></p><p>1. 5E was designed to encourage (but not force) characters with different skill sets to work together to overcome problems. The fighter/MU/cleric/thief party is considered the classic array. These types of groups have their origins in the Fellowship of the Ring, the Dirty Dozen, and a host of other examples in which individual members of a team bring a unique specialization or focus.</p><p></p><p>2. Synergies between certain classes and abilities are intended. This has become a major part of the game from the 3E era onward and many players enjoy finding and exploiting them. However, 5E seeks to minimize the broad disparity between using these synergies and not to curb system mastery requirements and allow new, casual or preoccupied players a greater degree of effectiveness in relation to uber-optimizers. System mastery and careful coordination remains a factor but, hopefully, not an overwhelming one.</p><p></p><p>3. Not all areas of expertise are created equal. This is one of the most contentious parts of the game and class balance. Confusing the issue is the influence of individual DMs and campaigns. Trapfinding might be an essential skill in a campaign with a lot of traps or useless in a campaign based around intrigue or wilderness exploration. Broad areas of expertise, such as combat or general perception, tend to have far more relevancy than narrow areas (trapfinding, turn undead). Spellcasting classes, which can often swap out areas of expertise by simply choosing different spells, will almost always find ways to be relevant.</p><p></p><p>In all of this the question becomes: Should the game encourage or force players to choose different areas of expertise or should the players play what they want? Should an adventure writer assume the party will have a wizard or rogue? Can a party of all fighters or all bards be effective and different enough?</p><p></p><p>I'm of the opinion that the players should always play what they want and that the rules system and adventure design should support that without the DM needing to make special arrangements to allow the party a chance at success. I like flexibility in my characters, character classes and adventure design. I don't want one class to have a monopoly on essential skills and I don't want to force parties into tackling a challenge with a certain skill.</p><p></p><p>Trapped-Corridor Example: If the party has a rogue they can disarm the trap. If they have a lot of combat skill they might choose to fight the bugbears on the alternate path instead. If they have a lot of hit points or healing they might just suffer damage from the trap. If they are sneaky they might sneak past the bugbears. If they are persuasive they might bluff their way past. If they're perceptive they might find the secret door that leads to another alternate path. The point is to never force encounters or challenges on the players and then force them to overcome it using a specific method.</p><p></p><p>Tangent on Damage: Damage dealing, since it was brought up, is a core competency skill for many classes. Thus it does have an impact on class balance. Not all classes need to have high damage output to contribute but all classes must be able to contribute to be effective. The actual numbers and analysis (e.g., "A fighter needs to have a 50% greater DPR than a wizard to be effective.") are important from a game design standpoint and to theory-crafters that enjoy delving into such matters, but don't concern the majority of players. If you're playing a fighter and don't feel you're dealing enough damage, you can look for ways to boost it or talk to your DM about the problem. For 5E, if enough players complain in WotC surveys that a class is too weak, they may do something about it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rod Staffwand, post: 6461829, member: 6776279"] As I understand it, the facts are these: 1. 5E was designed to encourage (but not force) characters with different skill sets to work together to overcome problems. The fighter/MU/cleric/thief party is considered the classic array. These types of groups have their origins in the Fellowship of the Ring, the Dirty Dozen, and a host of other examples in which individual members of a team bring a unique specialization or focus. 2. Synergies between certain classes and abilities are intended. This has become a major part of the game from the 3E era onward and many players enjoy finding and exploiting them. However, 5E seeks to minimize the broad disparity between using these synergies and not to curb system mastery requirements and allow new, casual or preoccupied players a greater degree of effectiveness in relation to uber-optimizers. System mastery and careful coordination remains a factor but, hopefully, not an overwhelming one. 3. Not all areas of expertise are created equal. This is one of the most contentious parts of the game and class balance. Confusing the issue is the influence of individual DMs and campaigns. Trapfinding might be an essential skill in a campaign with a lot of traps or useless in a campaign based around intrigue or wilderness exploration. Broad areas of expertise, such as combat or general perception, tend to have far more relevancy than narrow areas (trapfinding, turn undead). Spellcasting classes, which can often swap out areas of expertise by simply choosing different spells, will almost always find ways to be relevant. In all of this the question becomes: Should the game encourage or force players to choose different areas of expertise or should the players play what they want? Should an adventure writer assume the party will have a wizard or rogue? Can a party of all fighters or all bards be effective and different enough? I'm of the opinion that the players should always play what they want and that the rules system and adventure design should support that without the DM needing to make special arrangements to allow the party a chance at success. I like flexibility in my characters, character classes and adventure design. I don't want one class to have a monopoly on essential skills and I don't want to force parties into tackling a challenge with a certain skill. Trapped-Corridor Example: If the party has a rogue they can disarm the trap. If they have a lot of combat skill they might choose to fight the bugbears on the alternate path instead. If they have a lot of hit points or healing they might just suffer damage from the trap. If they are sneaky they might sneak past the bugbears. If they are persuasive they might bluff their way past. If they're perceptive they might find the secret door that leads to another alternate path. The point is to never force encounters or challenges on the players and then force them to overcome it using a specific method. Tangent on Damage: Damage dealing, since it was brought up, is a core competency skill for many classes. Thus it does have an impact on class balance. Not all classes need to have high damage output to contribute but all classes must be able to contribute to be effective. The actual numbers and analysis (e.g., "A fighter needs to have a 50% greater DPR than a wizard to be effective.") are important from a game design standpoint and to theory-crafters that enjoy delving into such matters, but don't concern the majority of players. If you're playing a fighter and don't feel you're dealing enough damage, you can look for ways to boost it or talk to your DM about the problem. For 5E, if enough players complain in WotC surveys that a class is too weak, they may do something about it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.
Top