D&D 5E What is balance to you, and why do you care (or don't)?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

No you can't. There is no counter to the existence of the players I have played with that like simple fighters. You can point to people that don't like simple, but that doesn't negate those that do, so is not a counter.

Nobody is being held hostage. You have a complex Fighter. Make use of it or don't, but don't try to take the simple version away from those that do.

Bad analogies are bad. If there weren't a significant number of people who like simple, there would be no Champion subclass. WotC who as far greater information than you or I do, felt it necessary to invest the design time, playtesting time, and inclusion of the Champion in 5e. There is no "hoping" that they show up. It's a fact that they are already here and playing the game.

No need. They already have the Champion.

This is a completely different issue. You'd have more success trying to get WotC to make a more satisfying non-caster for you than you will in trying to get them to screw paying customers over by altering the Champion subclass to suit your wants.

Again, its condescending and paternalistic to only give them one flavor (the champion, which is also mechanically sub par and thematically awful), which also locks the fighter out of the "serious player" classes (hey, Gygax's words, not mine).

Honestly, the existence of the champion creates more problems than it solves. It requires the rest of the fighter base class to be dull as dirt. The only reason it exists is because of ancient grognards insisting on "sImPuLL FiTTer!" in the playtest because that's the crappy way D&D has done it since the 70's.

5E's playtest was half assed, and they literally gave up on the fighter before it was done and rushed it out the door because they spent so much time on the real classes (casters). D&D has basically alienated anyone who wants to A) play a simple character that ISNT a fighter and B) anyone who wants a mechanically satisfying non-caster with narrative agency (ie, class based rather than stuff the wizard player can ALSO do). If it's going to be a big tent, then it needs to embrace it. Simple for all tastes, complex for all tastes.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, its condescending and paternalistic to only give them one flavor (the champion),

Then they can get additional subclasses made for them. The solution is not to take away. It's to add. You can't succeed at this by the way. WotC will never alter the Champion like you want. You might be able to get them to add in some new martial class that you would like, though.

which also locks the fighter out of the "serious player" classes (hey, Gygax's words not mine).

Gygax gave them a simple Fighter class. They literally did nothing but swing weapons and get an extra attack eventually. His Fighter class is fully supportive of me, not you. It's also patently false in 5e. The Fighter is very easily a serious PC class, even the Champion.

 

[HammerMan]

None of those. He's literally a full celestial with additional magical ability, including learned magic from other races.

D&D can't model him via PC classes. From the books we know he is a full celestial, learns magic from other races like D&D Wizards, but doesn't study magic from books or prepare spells daily and casts more like an unlimited Sorcerer. You'd have to create a special NPC stat block for him and abilities.

Again, none of those. He's more than human, since he has small strains of celestial blood and elven blood that give him special abilities, but not enough elven blood to be half-elven or enough celestial blood to be a deva.

He'd also need a special NPC block to cover what he is.

You must be fun when people bring up pop culture “everyone is an NPC”

 

[James Gasik]

Well I mean, that's pretty much how 5e is built. Even if a character is said to belong to a player class, the truth is, every NPC plays by different rules than PC's.

They may have some things in common, but NPC's =/= PC's in this edition. Aragorn probably wouldn't be a D&D Ranger, for example.

Even fictional D&D heroes aren't immune to this- Mr. Do'Urden definitely wouldn't be either.

The only thing Elminster has in common with a member of the Wizard class is he has spell slots.

Classes aren't designed to model fictional characters, but approximate their abilities.

 

[Helldritch]

Then they can get additional subclasses made for them. The solution is not to take away. It's to add. You can't succeed at this by the way. WotC will never alter the Champion like you want. You might be able to get them to add in some new martial class that you would like, though.

WotC no. But homebrew can. Not that I would. My idea of giving them combat manoeuver was to give an easy solution to @GMforPowergamers but it is not a solution that would be in my games. The champion and the fighter class in general is fine as it is. But again, 2 or 3 combat manoeuver is not the end of the world in complexity.

Gygax gave them a simple Fighter class. They literally did nothing but swing weapons and get an extra attack eventually. His Fighter class is fully supportive of me, not you. It's also patently false in 5e. The Fighter is very easily a serious PC class, even the Champion.

1ed had it right. A shame that almost the entirety of the new players base only want to play 5ed. I'd go 1ed any time over 5ed. 5ed is great, but way too magical to my taste, and at the same time, not enough.

Magic should be hard to get, but once you're in it, it should be powerful. Not the lesser variant we have today with 5ed.
And here, I am not saying that 5ed is a bad edition. On the contrary, it is great. But the axis on "magical" character is not necessarily the best choice IMHO. It is why I play gritty realism and slow hp recovery. It removes a bit of the "super heroe" feel that 5ed when played as is.

 

[Scott Christian]

In my opinion, rules need to feel balanced. And by balanced, I really mean not marginalize any player for their choices. The problem with D&D is the DM can marginalize a player, despite the rules, and vice-a-versa, the players can marginalize the DM despite the rules. So it really is the notion of finding the right players and DM combined with the right rule set.

All that said, it can also be compared to finding the balance in a song. Some might argue "I Want to Hold Your Hand" as the greatest pop song ever. And then others come in and say, "But the lyrics are so cliche!" Yet millions upon millions enjoy the song, despite the lyrics (or because of the lyrics). Others argue the song needs musicianship. Others say they need lyrics with depth and musicianship. But in the end, it really just boils down to the right musicians and the right producer combined with the right instruments.

I mean, so many on this board loved 1e - the most asymmetrically balanced RPG ever.

And last, and no offense to anyone reading, but from my experience, the only people complaining of balance issues are the players or DM that feel marginalized. And that boils down to two things: 1) They want to min/max (or whatever you want to call it) because that is one way they get enjoyment from the game or 2) they are actually marginalized from using their potential because of a crappy DM or table chemistry.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well I mean, that's pretty much how 5e is built. Even if a character is said to belong to a player class, the truth is, every NPC plays by different rules than PC's.

They may have some things in common, but NPC's =/= PC's in this edition. Aragorn probably wouldn't be a D&D Ranger, for example.

Even fictional D&D heroes aren't immune to this- Mr. Do'Urden definitely wouldn't be either.

The only thing Elminster has in common with a member of the Wizard class is he has spell slots.

Classes aren't designed to model fictional characters, but approximate their abilities.

Personally I am fine with both approaches as they produce different results and can both be enjoyable for different reasons. When NPCs are built with different rules, that can be very good for things like allowing the GM to go more with being creative for the purposes of making adventures, it can also be easier to prepare if NPCs are not as bogged down by the same character creation method as PCs (presuming that method is itself a little involved). It just frees you up a bit on the GM side to play the world. On the other hand, there is fun in games where PCs and NPCs play by the same rules, especially if you are leaning into the game side of things. For instance, for horror, I tend to prefer systems where players characters and NPCS have different rules. But for my kung fu campaigns, where the fun is in competing against other martial heroes, I like them to follow the same rules.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well I mean, that's pretty much how 5e is built. Even if a character is said to belong to a player class, the truth is, every NPC plays by different rules than PC's.

They may have some things in common, but NPC's =/= PC's in this edition. Aragorn probably wouldn't be a D&D Ranger, for example.

Even fictional D&D heroes aren't immune to this- Mr. Do'Urden definitely wouldn't be either.

The only thing Elminster has in common with a member of the Wizard class is he has spell slots.

Classes aren't designed to model fictional characters, but approximate their abilities.

yes but as a concept "I want to play something like Drizt" is common enough (especially for a new player taking a fiction character like gandalf or harry potter or back in the day conan)

 

[Eric V]

I have, in numbers; and if given my druthers would often prefer to be one myself when I'm a player: as far as possible let me just roleplay my character and keep the mechanics out of my sight.

Such a player could always choose to -not- engage with the more intricate mechanics the class offers.

In essence, there is no real need for a "simple" class since any player can just choose to not use the more "complicated levers" of the class, making it simple.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Such a player could always choose to -not- engage with the more intricate mechanics the class offers.

In essence, there is no real need for a "simple" class since any player can just choose to not use the more "complicated levers" of the class, making it simple.

One of the appeals of Basic D&D was the simplicity. I played AD&D back in the day but I was occasionally in games where the GM preferred basic, and the simplicity could be very refreshing. Again, as with my other post, I don't think this has to be a zero sum game. Maybe the old approach of having a basic and advanced edition is not economically sound (I don't know one way or the other on that, but I could see them not wanting to split their own fan base). However you could make a game modular so that groups can set the game to simple or advanced (take a page out of 2E with all its flagged optional rules for instance).