Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8622936" data-attributes="member: 18">There has been a lot of good input already on this, particularly from [USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] but I'd say in D&D's context specifically, the balance that matters to me is:A) Combat is the central focus of 5E (and most editions). I will not hear arguments to the contrary. It is, in terms of rules, class design, even race design. Also, just looking at sessions, it and RP (with few/no dice rolls) tend to take up a huge proportion of most sessions, and streaming has only made this more obvious and confirmable.THEREFORE, the balance I want means all characters can contribute very significantly and similarly (in terms of overall impact) to combat. Pre-4E, I was of the misguided opinion that maybe contributing less in combat but more out of combat was fine. It isn't. That's wrong, in my experience, in D&D at least (in less combat-centric games I think it can be true). Players who don't have much to do in combat, even if they're technically "contributing" just have less fun, and this is a drag on the whole experience - a small drag maybe, but it is one, and it's not needed.So balance to me in D&D means all characters contributing strongly to combat. 5E isn't bad at this. After 4E, it's the best. but there's more of a gap than I feel entirely comfortable with. Especially as some subclasses which seem conceptually combat-centric actually do the opposite (Assassin springs immediately to mind).B) No characters should be totally or even largely obviate the need for another character out of combat. Thus balance in this case means a spellcaster shouldn't be able to lean on say summons and cantrips in combat and be huge there, and then totally obviate the need for the Rogue by still also having so many spells with so much utility that he might as well not exist. Every class should have significant out-of-combat utility. D&D has not always done well here. 4E did better than 5E, because it was very easy, with a Feat or two (which were plentiful) for even say a Fighter to get in on the act. It wasn't perfect, but 5E's approach returns to creating situations where the non-combat pillars tend to be ruled by spellcasters, and where spells potentially obviate the need for just about anything. 5E was not brave enough to fix this. Perhaps a 6E will be (though I doubt DND2024 will be). Mostly in D&D's case this means nerfing spells and spellcasters, but the amount that is needed can be reduced by giving non-spellcasters more skills, tools, expertises and just outright abilities outside combat (or which serve a dual purpose).This also contributes to D&D being less fun after L10, even in 5E. Warlocks show a potentially good path here, but more boldness is needed.</blockquote>

Verification