Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
There is a lot of talk now about the balance of fighters vs wizards and whatnot. And now is a good time to bring up a problem that I don't think I have ever seen someone talk about. Specifically, its about melee characters, and the way the metagame, or even metafiction, reacts to them. I say “sword” instead of melee, mostly because swords seem to be the favored melee weapon for this kind of thing.
You see, there is a problem with melee combat that is best known from the real world adage: “Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.” What it basically boils down to, is that the sword isn't the ideal weapon to use in most situations, but it is at it's most glaring when you look at other options with a range and/or power (or perhaps even ease of use) advantage over the sword. This problem was addressed in real life, by the eventual phasing out of the sword from modern conflict.
In the fantasy genre, however, this problem was in direct conflict with the sword's iconography. The sword is a “cool” weapon, and it symbolizes power, honor, nobility, all that kind of jazz. So when you want a character to reflect those traits, you want them to use a sword.
So here lies the main problem: You want to use a sword, but using a sword isn't as great as it sounds. Some fantasy just rolls with it, This happens in more “historic” settings, deconstructions, or even in games where a player has access to more than one character.
Now for what I am really talking about (apologies to the tl:dr crowd)
Most players want their swordsman to be just as cool as everyone else (at least). This has lead to the balancing trends that you see in games, and especially in modern games, as most things build somewhat off of those things that have come before.
When it comes to balance, the metagame has to be adapted in order to make a swordsman an attractive option. There are, basically, two different ways to accomplish this. Sometimes, the two are even used in tandem with varying degrees.
Type 1, the first way: Making other options unattractive.
The best example of this kind of option in fiction, that I know if, is the Dune universe. Therein, people of importance have a personal shield which prevents weapons, other than “slow moving” ones such as swords and knives, from harming them. This is a more extreme example, as other options are rendered completely inviable: Bullets and other projectiles simply do not penetrate the protection field, and energy weapons, explode like an atomic bomb when used against the shield. Needless to say, people end up using melee combat.
Type 2, the second way: Making swords (and their users) more attractive.
A good example of this, again imo, comes from the Star Wars universe. The swords in this universe, lightsabers, are able to cut through nearly any substance, and even reflect energy attacks, which happen to be the standard type of ranged ammunition in this setting. The primary Sword users of this setting are Jedi (or Sith, but lets not delve too far). Jedi have superhuman powers including expanded awareness, incredible agility, and the ability to manipulate objects over distances. These things, when combined, nearly negate all of a traditional swordsman's weaknesses. They can close the gaps, negate ranged attacks and ambushes, or even use their sword as a ranged weapon if need be.
Each gaming system is shaped by how much of each type they employ. In wargames, individual unit balance is less stressed. This lends itself to picking minor amounts of each, such as “melee weapons deal more damage than ranged weapons, because they don't have range” (type 2) and possibly “a penalty for ranged units when attacking in melee range”( type 1). Of course, because the players are using armies with rigid rules of what they can and cannot do, instead of a single RPG character, the choice to have any individual unit as melee has a much smaller opportunity cost.
The problem
When you don't use enough of Type 1 or Type 2, swordsmen fall behind the curve. But everyone has an upper threshold of exactly how much of Type 1 and/or Type 2 they will enjoy. This amount is largely Dependant on the game they are playing. A game where everyone is using normal humans would probably favor Type 1 (things like gun malfunctions), and tolerate next to no Type 2. Contrast that with people playing a game of superheroes, who would possibly love Type 2 but loathe any amount of Type 1.
When looking at this problem with a D&D lens, you have to consider how much of each you want to use. The sneaky guy wants to be just as cool as the swordsman, so type one is perhaps a bit less desirable. On the other hand, some people prefer their mundane swordsmen remain mundane, so having gobs of type 2 will throw them off. Keep in mind the other players are trying to be wizards and clerics and other such things, so keeping people at about the same level of coolness is going to be a challenge.
The question
How much of Type 1 and how much of Type 2 should D&D Next have?
You see, there is a problem with melee combat that is best known from the real world adage: “Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.” What it basically boils down to, is that the sword isn't the ideal weapon to use in most situations, but it is at it's most glaring when you look at other options with a range and/or power (or perhaps even ease of use) advantage over the sword. This problem was addressed in real life, by the eventual phasing out of the sword from modern conflict.
In the fantasy genre, however, this problem was in direct conflict with the sword's iconography. The sword is a “cool” weapon, and it symbolizes power, honor, nobility, all that kind of jazz. So when you want a character to reflect those traits, you want them to use a sword.
So here lies the main problem: You want to use a sword, but using a sword isn't as great as it sounds. Some fantasy just rolls with it, This happens in more “historic” settings, deconstructions, or even in games where a player has access to more than one character.
Now for what I am really talking about (apologies to the tl:dr crowd)
Most players want their swordsman to be just as cool as everyone else (at least). This has lead to the balancing trends that you see in games, and especially in modern games, as most things build somewhat off of those things that have come before.
When it comes to balance, the metagame has to be adapted in order to make a swordsman an attractive option. There are, basically, two different ways to accomplish this. Sometimes, the two are even used in tandem with varying degrees.
Type 1, the first way: Making other options unattractive.
The best example of this kind of option in fiction, that I know if, is the Dune universe. Therein, people of importance have a personal shield which prevents weapons, other than “slow moving” ones such as swords and knives, from harming them. This is a more extreme example, as other options are rendered completely inviable: Bullets and other projectiles simply do not penetrate the protection field, and energy weapons, explode like an atomic bomb when used against the shield. Needless to say, people end up using melee combat.
Type 2, the second way: Making swords (and their users) more attractive.
A good example of this, again imo, comes from the Star Wars universe. The swords in this universe, lightsabers, are able to cut through nearly any substance, and even reflect energy attacks, which happen to be the standard type of ranged ammunition in this setting. The primary Sword users of this setting are Jedi (or Sith, but lets not delve too far). Jedi have superhuman powers including expanded awareness, incredible agility, and the ability to manipulate objects over distances. These things, when combined, nearly negate all of a traditional swordsman's weaknesses. They can close the gaps, negate ranged attacks and ambushes, or even use their sword as a ranged weapon if need be.
Each gaming system is shaped by how much of each type they employ. In wargames, individual unit balance is less stressed. This lends itself to picking minor amounts of each, such as “melee weapons deal more damage than ranged weapons, because they don't have range” (type 2) and possibly “a penalty for ranged units when attacking in melee range”( type 1). Of course, because the players are using armies with rigid rules of what they can and cannot do, instead of a single RPG character, the choice to have any individual unit as melee has a much smaller opportunity cost.
The problem
When you don't use enough of Type 1 or Type 2, swordsmen fall behind the curve. But everyone has an upper threshold of exactly how much of Type 1 and/or Type 2 they will enjoy. This amount is largely Dependant on the game they are playing. A game where everyone is using normal humans would probably favor Type 1 (things like gun malfunctions), and tolerate next to no Type 2. Contrast that with people playing a game of superheroes, who would possibly love Type 2 but loathe any amount of Type 1.
When looking at this problem with a D&D lens, you have to consider how much of each you want to use. The sneaky guy wants to be just as cool as the swordsman, so type one is perhaps a bit less desirable. On the other hand, some people prefer their mundane swordsmen remain mundane, so having gobs of type 2 will throw them off. Keep in mind the other players are trying to be wizards and clerics and other such things, so keeping people at about the same level of coolness is going to be a challenge.
The question
How much of Type 1 and how much of Type 2 should D&D Next have?
)."
