D&D 5E Rule of Three: 7 Feb. 2014

[Neonchameleon]

Good post. (Couldn't XP, sorry.)

But I don't think it's particularly mysterious to understand where these distinctions arise. In games where the players either don't have or don't exert much system mastery, or the DM uses a strong hand in creating encounters to emphasize spotlight balance, LFQW simply isn't going to arise as a perceivable issue. And that playstyle often overlaps with your 3rd rail, where players have internalized non-balance as being part and parcel of the class definition.

In my 3.X/now PF group, one player often fondly refers back to his monk with the comment "I liked that guy. Boy, did he suck." It's pretty much a table meme at this point that monks are awful. But it's just assumed that sucking is part of the reason you choose a monk. Not because of the greater difficulty, but sometimes it's just funny to play a bad character.

On the flip side, in our high level game, the 19th level witch (an alternate wizard) cohort of one of the characters singlehandedly won a combat against
multiple balors by using Time Stop. The table reaction? "What are you going to do? It's Time Stop, that's just what it does." Again, its overpowered nature is just assumed to be part and parcel of the spell definition, and by extrapolation, high level wizards are just better.

Do I like this particular approach? Not really. But I've become sensitive to just how ingrained certain expectations of the D&D experience are to a wide swath of gamers. My enjoyment of constant evolution and new concepts often leads me to be the odd man out in my play group's preferences.

The problem I have with this approach is that the game seems to me to be fundamentally dishonest about it. If the game were to say up front "The monk sucks. Do not play a monk unless you want to suck." I would have far fewer problems. But there is no guidance given this way - were D&D to use the guidelines of Ars Magica I'd have far fewer complaints.

 

[TwoSix]

The problem I have with this approach is that the game seems to me to be fundamentally dishonest about it. If the game were to say up front "The monk sucks. Do not play a monk unless you want to suck." I would have far fewer problems. But there is no guidance given this way - were D&D to use the guidelines of Ars Magica I'd have far fewer complaints.

I fundamentally agree. Ideally, each class would have a break down by tier and "pillar" of what they're good and bad at. Doesn't have to be highly granular (or you get WoW-style DPS ranking fights), but at least a "Weak", "Solid Contributor", and "Excels" kind of ranking.

 

[Hussar]

I fundamentally agree. Ideally, each class would have a break down by tier and "pillar" of what they're good and bad at. Doesn't have to be highly granular (or you get WoW-style DPS ranking fights), but at least a "Weak", "Solid Contributor", and "Excels" kind of ranking.

To be fair though, is it really that hard to see? Do we really need to put warning labels on classes? And can you imagine the whining and complaining and endless kvetching from people who disagree with the labels? "How dare you say that a monk doesn't "excel" in combs? I'll have you know in my game..." is going to be bloody endless.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To be fair though, is it really that hard to see? Do we really need to put warning labels on classes?

YES! Yes it is hard for newbies to see. Possibly you weren't around at the start of 3.0 or possibly you've forgotten. But most people reading it thought that the Monk was the most overpowered and broken class. The Mystic Theurge likewise at the start of 3.5 was thought by almost everyone to be broken. And these weren't people new to D&D and just playing what seemed cool. These were experienced D&D gamers.

And can you imagine the whining and complaining and endless kvetching from people who disagree with the labels? "How dare you say that a monk doesn't "excel" in combs? I'll have you know in my game..." is going to be bloody endless.

Not really. Not if it starts out that these warning labels are in the PHB. "This class is better than I expected" is not half the problem "My experience sucked" is.

 

[Minigiant]

It seems like the world power of paragon and epic fighters is that they are near invincible killing machines. They can take out equal threats and stopping them requires a high committal of resources. Casters have to nova or get lucky with control spells. Lesser Warriors and equal level tricky types can't stand up to them.

Basically a high level fighter is a walking Pyhrric Victory for you at best since you have to nova one to kill him which leaves you open you counterattack and you could still lose the fight. The 5e fighter is the 3e wizard, some scary dude.

So the high level martial types are pretty much "dragons".

 

[Neonchameleon]

Casters have to nova or get lucky with control spells.

Not good enough. If the caster novas on the fighter and stands a good chance then the fighter isn't powerful enough. Casters have many, many more tools than fighters to decide when, where, and whether to fight - if a fight isn't rigged in favour of the caster before it starts it means that the fighter screwed up. If the caster novas and beats the fighter then they've expended 90% of their resources to take away 100% of the fighters. They win the attrition battle.

Fighters need to be strong enough that for a caster to take them on head on is an act of stupidity. An obvious Darwin Award. The fighter needs to be strong enough that casters run like buggery rather than take them on directly unless they outnumber them.

And tricky types need to be able to play trickster against the wizard. The wizard should be a tricky type, not a brute force type. The wizard/rogue comparison should be the one that looks for the balance point.

 

[Derren]

Which is more than the never it has ever been affected by the spellcasting power of one person.

And in many cases (especially Genghiz Khan) the leader was leader because they were a kick-ass fighter. In other cases (Gustavus Adolphus, Richard the Lionheart, Charles Martel) they didn't have to fight their way up - but their personal skill in battle and ability to take to the front lines was a huge factor in raising the morale of their troops. (I think that the 30 Years War was the final European war where this was the case; gunpowder weapons make it too easy for a peasant thirty yards away to take down any warrior). Arthur and Lancelot in the myths, and Conan in the stories were all very much leaders in this school.

For raising morale you do not need to be a very good fighter. Status is more important. Also you forget that most of the time they were so successful on the battlefield because the equipment of lords and kings are several magnitudes better than the one of the common soldiers.

Hector and Achiles impact compared to Odysseus? Seriously? You need to re-read the Iliad. Odysseus had one major impact on the course of the Trojan War (the Wooden Horse). He then spent the next ten years struggling to sail a ship from one end of the Aegean to the other. And he only got his chance because Achiles was powerful enough that when he wasn't in the battle (before the death of Patroclus) the Greeks were being pushed back into the sea, and when he was the Greeks were winning. Achiles mere appearance on the battlefield caused the Trojan army to flee back behind the walls. In short, Achiles presence on the battlefield was enough to rout a victorious army.

So Achilles preserved the Status Quo while Odysseus ended a year long war. Who had more impact?

 

[Neonchameleon]

For raising morale you do not need to be a very good fighter. Status is more important.

Um... no. For raising morale showing that you have a clue and aren't an inbred twit is always important. Social status gets you absolutely nowhere with morale.

Also you forget that most of the time they were so successful on the battlefield because the equipment of lords and kings are several magnitudes better than the one of the common soldiers.

And because they were better trained and ate better. The equipment of lords and kings was not normally significantly better than their knights.

So Achilles preserved the Status Quo while Odysseus ended a year long war. Who had more impact?

Troy was doomed with the death of Hector. That's why the Iliad ends there. Odysseus was fighting when Hector ran the Greeks (sans-Achiles) back to the ships.

So without Achiles the Greeks would have lost irrespective of whether or not Odysseus was there. The Greeks couldn't meet the Trojans on the open field, never mind win a siege against them. With Achiles but no Odysseus the Greeks win slowly. The best hope of the Trojans was dead and they can't do anything outside their walls.

 

[Derren]

Um... no. For raising morale showing that you have a clue and aren't an inbred twit is always important. Social status gets you absolutely nowhere with morale.

Right, because the king appearing on the field with his flag held high never raised moral. Only when he killed 56 enemies the soldiers on his side, in the middle of the battle, notice...

 

[Minigiant]

Not good enough. If the caster novas on the fighter and stands a good chance then the fighter isn't powerful enough. Casters have many, many more tools than fighters to decide when, where, and whether to fight - if a fight isn't rigged in favour of the caster before it starts it means that the fighter screwed up. If the caster novas and beats the fighter then they've expended 90% of their resources to take away 100% of the fighters. They win the attrition battle.

Fighters need to be strong enough that for a caster to take them on head on is an act of stupidity. An obvious Darwin Award. The fighter needs to be strong enough that casters run like buggery rather than take them on directly unless they outnumber them.

And tricky types need to be able to play trickster against the wizard. The wizard should be a tricky type, not a brute force type. The wizard/rogue comparison should be the one that looks for the balance point.

The fighter very good against caster types accordning to my playtests. An NPC caster of mine using the mage class dumped alot of spells on the fighter and was still kills. The weakening of spells and the reduction of spell slots makes a caster nova not very effecient against fighters who can make saving with proficincy and advantage to not die.

It's not perfect but not many things can beat a full fighter without a massive level/HD advanatge. It seems that is how they want them to be. Near unstoppable juggernauts. Some guy who everyone is in awe of because they are crazy powerful and not wanted to be on the enemy's side.

Some will like this. Others will hate it.