D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[ForeverSlayer]

The fact that the very bard you use as an example is the standing example of an ineffective character class in everything short of 4e just confirms that.

Where do you come up with this crap? I don't understand your faulty logic with comments like this.

Mod Note: Folks, EN World's rule #1 is, "Keep it civil." Folks should keep the level of rhetoric a bit higher than this. Thanks. ~Umbran

 

[Pour]

The first edition bard says hi. Then he kills the 4e bard and takes his stuff.

Thereby becoming the 4e bard?

@ForeverSlayer I think in comes down to all characters contributing meaningfully in all three pillars. I'm not saying a Bard outfights a Barbarian, but there has to be a baseline, some standard a Bard meets to attack and defend herself on an 'adequate' level, regardless of build options, something inherent in the class. Likewise, a Fighter should have some sort of baseline social and exploration potential.

I'm not satisfied with gross class shortcomings under the guise of 'always has been' or 'build it better stupid' if it means any class is crippled in one aspect of the game where 1. All players want to have fun 2. All players want to participate 3. No player wants to appear a load. So pretty much the whole experience. Admittedly, I also despise system mastery and optimization, and if you bake unbalance on a scale that gimps classes, you create an environment where optimization, level-dipping and multiclass craziness, and nickel-and-diming basically ruins the game for me.

Keep in mind 'not the best at' is not a gimp (so long as it doesn't extend into every pillar hehe), but 'useless' or 'terrible' at some crucial corner of the game [exploration, social, combat] is- hence the baseline standard I think some, myself included, want to see. Being too great and utterly miserable at some things only stretches to a point before it becomes obnoxious and burdensome in a game, whether for the individual player, the party, or the DM.

Would you begrudge any class a base level of competence for the sake of, what exactly, diversification? That kind of diversity doesn't lend itself to uniqueness so much as frustration, neglect of class in favor of more competent classes, and crazy fixes which optimize and break the game.

Edit: Also, for a DM like me, and even when I play, keeping up with the latest splat to keep me competitive and useful is not fun in my eyes. I rather be using the material given me to make a character I know is worth playing, and then playing the game.

 

[Ratskinner]

@ForeverSlayer I think in comes down to all characters contributing meaningfully in all three pillars. I'm not saying a Bard outfights a Barbarian, but there has to be a baseline, some standard a Bard meets to attack and defend herself on an 'adequate' level, regardless of build options, something inherent in the class. Likewise, a Fighter should have some sort of baseline social and exploration potential.

I think this is the heart of it, but I think there are issues that make it more complicated.

Issue 1: All D&D tables do not share the same levels of balance between the pillars. Frex: I've seen games where taking extra languages was an important part of things...simply by eliminating "common". So trading utility between pillars is a tricky business, and not always viable. I think some of the "unbalanced" charges leveled at 3e are due to cultural shifts in playstyle over the life of the edition. (Not all of them, to be sure, but some.)

Issue 2: Different players and groups have different conceptions of how wide the gaps between Useless, Weak, Able, Strong, and Primary Contributions should be. For instance, given the above, some characters that [MENTION=59411]Pour[/MENTION] might term useless in combat might be termed only weak by [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION]. I think a lot of its detractors felt that 4e's range between Useless and Primary was too narrow.

Issue 3: (Conflict) Resolution is different in all three pillars. Which makes it very hard to quantify exactly how to translate one to the other.

I think one of the purposes of the open playtest is to avoid solving these problems at the design(er) level, and let vox populi do it for them. So, in the end, "Its balanced" will mean "most people liked it this way." I could be wrong on that, though.

 

[Hussar]

I disagree with this. Contributing is varied concept and is not something that is easily seen as a 2 + 2 = 4. Sometimes I make characters based on concept and not "contributing factor". I don't want to have classes pigeon holed into specific roles because of the designer's idea of usefulness.

If i am hitting a monster, aiding a fellow adventurer, casting a buff, healing etc then I am contributing. Stop trying to stick give us that magic number that represents whether or not we are contributing. Name me one class in all the history of D&D that has never contributed in one way shape or form.

Now, this is a separate issue though. If you want to make a character that doesn't contribute or is weaker or whatever, more power to you. But, the mechanics should not say, "If you want to play a weak character who's contribution to the party will be almost entirely dependent on the DM, play this".

Or, to put it another way, if your contribution is exactly the same as what a 1st level commoner can do (aid another), then perhaps adding a bit to the class isn't a bad idea.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I think this is the heart of it, but I think there are issues that make it more complicated.

Issue 1: All D&D tables do not share the same levels of balance between the pillars. Frex: I've seen games where taking extra languages was an important part of things...simply by eliminating "common". So trading utility between pillars is a tricky business, and not always viable. I think some of the "unbalanced" charges leveled at 3e are due to cultural shifts in playstyle over the life of the edition. (Not all of them, to be sure, but some.)

Issue 2: Different players and groups have different conceptions of how wide the gaps between Useless, Weak, Able, Strong, and Primary Contributions should be. For instance, given the above, some characters that [MENTION=59411]Pour[/MENTION] might term useless in combat might be termed only weak by [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION]. I think a lot of its detractors felt that 4e's range between Useless and Primary was too narrow.

Issue 3: (Conflict) Resolution is different in all three pillars. Which makes it very hard to quantify exactly how to translate one to the other.

I think one of the purposes of the open playtest is to avoid solving these problems at the design(er) level, and let vox populi do it for them. So, in the end, "Its balanced" will mean "most people liked it this way." I could be wrong on that, though.

That was very insightful. Another complicating factor is that balance has to be achieved through encounter design. Giving every class equivalent combat power to nine decimal places hardly makes sense when every character has situational strengths and weaknesses, e.g. they me be strong or weak against undead, high-movement situations, will checks, whatever. Even if the classes are the same strength in a theoretical generic combat, that doesn't apply anymore once you get into the game. In any set of rules, balance requires skilled encounter design by the DM, keeping in mind the particular strengths and weaknesses of the party.

On the flip side, it's possible to have a game where everyone has fun despite wild imbalance in character power. I played and DMed many 1E games where there were PCs in the party from level 3 to 12. As long as the DM is competent, everyone could play an important role and have fun.

My idea of a useful "balance" for an RPG is spotlight balance. By the rules, every character has something they shine in, and every character has something useful to do in just about every situation. Then it's the DM's job to make sure the spotlight opportunities are spread around fairly and "useless" situations are mostly avoided.

I really loathe the hyper-focus on combat strength equivalence seen in 4E. First, it's wasted effort since so much depends on the DM getting it right, and if the DM is bad you're still going to get a bad game. I'd rather see the effort put into hyper-balance put into content instead. Second, it makes the classes boring. There's a lot less variety in classes available if you can't trade off strength in one pillar for strength in others. Third, it gives additional emphasis to combat in a game that hardly needs it.

 

[Jester David]

Characters, and classes in D&D, need to be able to contribute with roughly EQUAL WEIGHT. It isn't mandatory that it all be in the same exact way. HOWEVER, in a game like D&D where 90% of tables will put a good chunk of emphasis on combat, it isn't vastly advantageous to have a lot of options for stripping your character of combat prowess, almost regardless of what you get instead. The fact that the very bard you use as an example is the standing example of an ineffective character class in everything short of 4e just confirms that.

My favourite character in 3e was a bard. And she kicked ass!
More than once I racked up the highest damage in the party by watching and singing. +2 damage here, +3 damage there, an attack bonus, an extra attack, etc. I made everyone more awesome at what they already did. Except when I didn't and rebuffed the enemies, blinding them or greasing them. My favourite was when I greased the spiked chain the large centaur was weilding, negating his entire array of feats and turning the fight into a cakewalk. I was very effective in combat.

I hated the 4e bard because it didn't seem designed for bard players. It seemed designed for people who didn't like the bard or wanted the bard to be this offensive machine that spent most of their actions attacking directly.
There was a design mindset throught the edition that if you were were not attacking and directly dealing damage yourself that the class neded to be reworked. So we got an offensive bard dealing damage with insults and illusionists acting like blaster wizards.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I hated the 4e bard because it didn't seem designed for bard players. It seemed designed for people who didn't like the bard or wanted the bard to be this offensive machine that spent most of their actions attacking directly.
There was a design mindset throught the edition that if you were were not attacking and directly dealing damage yourself that the class neded to be reworked. So we got an offensive bard dealing damage with insults and illusionists acting like blaster wizards.

As a frequent player of bard characters throughout all editions, I have to disagree with your statement here.

 

[n00bdragon]

I played and DMed many 1E games where there were PCs in the party from level 3 to 12. As long as the DM is competent, everyone could play an important role and have fun.

<snip>

I really loathe the hyper-focus on combat strength equivalence seen in 4E. First, it's wasted effort since so much depends on the DM getting it right, and if the DM is bad you're still going to get a bad game.

Wait a minute. So it's okay for 1E to be dependent on a good DM but not 4E? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any point you've made but that's some serious goalpost moving.

 

[Jester David]

As a frequent player of bard characters throughout all editions, I have to disagree with your statement here.

So, you're happy with the design if the 4e bard and feel it was a good representation if the bard? That the mechanics were a good representation of the unique hooks and flavour of the bard?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The first edition bard says hi. Then he kills the 4e bard and takes his stuff.

The 1e bard isn't a class, and, while potent, isn't anything the 4e bard can't measure up to IMHO Nor are the actual features of the 1e bard itself that impressive. It's only the combination with the character's existing dual classes that it looks good.