D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad

[I'm A Banana]

This left me scratching my head. Why would an illusionist suck in combat?

Oh sure, they might have low HP, lousy armour, and not be terribly good at sticking the pointy end of something into the other fellow, but the ability to alter the enemy's perception of the situation is a devastatingly effective combat ability.

Making the enemy see what you want them to see, while keeping them blind to the things you want hidden is a fundamental aspect of the art of war.

If I can make the enemy flee from an overwhelming force that doesn't exist, around obstacles that aren't there, into clear terrain that is actually the edge of a cliff … I'd say I'm pretty darn sensational at combat.

Combat is more than HP, to-hit, AC, damage dice and number of attacks. You can suck at all of those things and still be very effective in combat.

Hey, they might not! I was going with the idea that in a D&D style universe, there's typically a lot of things that won't respond much to your illusions (thinking in terms of wild animals, monsters, divine beings with illusion-piercing vision, etc.). But I wasn't trying to be definitive -- maybe your illusionist would be a decent combatant AND a decent face, and suck when he's forced to rough it in the wilds! Or maybe he'd be fairly well-rounded on all pillars. The point being that it should be OK to suck at something if that's what you want to do with your character (and the counterpoint that it's OK not to suck if you don't want to, too!).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hahaha, of course not. There's nothing evil about loving combat and wanting to play a game full of it. No one is calling anyone else badwrongevil, so don't be so jumpy!

It is true, though, that D&D hasn't really ever positioned itself as a game defined by combat(just claim that 4e is all about combat and see the responses! ), so I wonder why you'd insist that it must exclude those who don't want as much combat.

First you are missing the point. Wanting to play Samwise is not inherently wrong. Neither is wanting to play Legolas Greenleaf. However wanting to play Samwise Gamgee alongside Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli is just as much of a problem as wanting to play Legolas Greenleaf alongside Sam, Frodo, Merry, and Pippin.

And D&D doesn't position itself except as D&D. It doesn't need to. On the other hand it is what it is. A hacked tabletop wargame with a high proportion of the rules being about combat. It is also the game of violence without consequences in which there is no penalty for getting hurt - even Feng Shui doesn't have violence that consequence

it gives me the impression that you want a very narrow and exclusive kind of D&D that is not actually a fantasy adventure game, but is more specifically a game mostly about combat.

Context is King. I think that a party of Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas to add Samwise is every bit as disruptive as adding a Fishmalk. As I have said all along I don't have a problem with Sam as a character. But he belongs in that party about as much as a chaotic evil steals from the party rogue does in a party of evil killing paladins.

And I would further point out that you claim to want a character to be able to act effectively out of combat while at the same time point blank refusing to allow them the non-combat abilities, or powers, that actively enable them to do this. Your version of D&D is one I find far narrower than the one I play.

 

[Starfox]

Oh, I can imagine it. It takes DM fiat. DM fiat to get the Dragon to act stupidly. (Which I consider bad DMing practice). DM fiat to change the treasure. DM fiat to re-write the world to suit the players. All of this I consider bad DMing practice.

Many games have some kind of interaction system that can be useful in combat. 3E has a very rudimentary one allowing Intimidate and Bluff some limited combat uses. But in a game like TORG interactions was a cornerstone of the combat system (it was how you gained cards, which in turn held hero victory) and quite often a fight ended with a spectacular interaction. Which is all quite true to a cinematic game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

First you are missing the point. Wanting to play Samwise is not inherently wrong. Neither is wanting to play Legolas Greenleaf. However wanting to play Samwise Gamgee alongside Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli is just as much of a problem as wanting to play Legolas Greenleaf alongside Sam, Frodo, Merry, and Pippin.

In a group that's able to share focus time in the interests of a mutually fun game (most groups I've been a part of), it's not a problem. It becomes a problem when someone in the group decides that they don't want to share, where they want to take most of the focus time and put it on something they want and ignore their fellow players. Which, in a group that features multiple playstyles coming together under one game, is kind of a a disruptive, antisocial move. In a group that's homogenous, it's harmless, but I must confess such homogeneity is alien to me.

And D&D doesn't position itself except as D&D. It doesn't need to. On the other hand it is what it is. A hacked tabletop wargame with a high proportion of the rules being about combat. It is also the game of violence without consequences in which there is no penalty for getting hurt - even Feng Shui doesn't have violence that consequence

None of that really pops up when you ask D&D about itself.

If we let D&D define itself, it's pretty much required to have significant non-combat as part of normal game play! Courtly intrigue, quests for treasure, storytelling, heroic fantasy, fantasy story....Violence is a part of that definition (battles with deadly foes, daring rescues), but it's not a wargame, it's not required to have a high proportion of the rules about combat, it's not about violence without consequences....

This implies they all sit together under that roof, not segregated into their own little corners.

Context is King. I think that a party of Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas to add Samwise is every bit as disruptive as adding a Fishmalk. As I have said all along I don't have a problem with Sam as a character. But he belongs in that party about as much as a chaotic evil steals from the party rogue does in a party of evil killing paladins.

I'm unaware of this strict rule against miscegenation hard-coded into D&D. One should not be a disruptive jerk, but being a disruptive jerk is 100% about player dynamics and not in the slightest about having a particular alignment or a particular class or particular game style or play element. One can be a jerk like the guy who insists on everyone playing their way, for instance, but that's not a problem if everyone WANTS to play that way. All player dynamics.

And I would further point out that you claim to want a character to be able to act effectively out of combat while at the same time point blank refusing to allow them the non-combat abilities, or powers, that actively enable them to do this. Your version of D&D is one I find far narrower than the one I play.

I think you're jumping at shadows again! I assure you, I'm proposing no such thing, so don't worry!

 

[Neonchameleon]

In a group that's able to share focus time in the interests of a mutually fun game (most groups I've been a part of), it's not a problem. It becomes a problem when someone in the group decides that they don't want to share, where they want to take most of the focus time and put it on something they want and ignore their fellow players. Which, in a group that features multiple playstyles coming together under one game, is kind of a a disruptive, antisocial move. In a group that's homogenous, it's harmless, but I must confess such homogeneity is alien to me.

The problem here is that three of the group are Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas, they are into sharing the focus - with combat being a team sport. Samwise is trying to play a completely different game to those three. As I have said so many times before, Samwise, Frodo, Merry, and Pippin is a perfectly fine group.

None of that really pops up when you ask D&D about itself.

If we let D&D define itself, it's pretty much required to have significant non-combat as part of normal game play! Courtly intrigue, quests for treasure, storytelling, heroic fantasy, fantasy story....Violence is a part of that definition (battles with deadly foes, daring rescues), but it's not a wargame, it's not required to have a high proportion of the rules about combat, it's not about violence without consequences....

If we assume D&D exists in a vacuum, possibly. But compared to other RPGs violence without consequences (for the victors) is one of the key factors distinguishing D&D from almost any other RPG I can think of. So yes, it is a big part of what D&D is about because it is one of the distinguishing features of D&D when compared to e.g. Rolemaster, WoD, or Fate (to name challengers in three successive decades). And unless and until D&D gives consequences to the winners of acts of violence it is going to keep combat as a central aspect.

I'm unaware of this strict rule against miscegenation hard-coded into D&D. One should not be a disruptive jerk, but being a disruptive jerk is 100% about player dynamics and not in the slightest about having a particular alignment or a particular class or particular game style or play element. One can be a jerk like the guy who insists on everyone playing their way, for instance, but that's not a problem if everyone WANTS to play that way. All player dynamics.

I am, however, aware that when one player has an utterly different agenda to the other players that is a massive red flag that the player dynamics are badly screwed up. It's not hard coded into the rules. There's no suggestion in the rules that you shouldn't play a Fishmalk. (Or a kender). But they are incredibly heavy warning signs that the player dynamic is incredibly screwed up.

And, as I said, the dynamic would not be so screwed up if you were playing a game like Fate. Or a game with powers that Sam's player could use to make him effective at combat. Like 4e's powers.

When discussing D&D with you I always get the impression that I'm not discussing D&D with you. I'm discussing some idealised role playing game that has rules a lot more like those of Fate than they are D&D - but for some reason you choose to name it D&D. And I'm discussing something that has its roots in the rules and history of D&D - so we are talking at complete cross purposes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The problem here is that three of the group are Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas, they are into sharing the focus - with combat being a team sport. Samwise is trying to play a completely different game to those three. As I have said so many times before, Samwise, Frodo, Merry, and Pippin is a perfectly fine group.

there are ways to make it work...

forget LotR for a moment. Think leverage...

Player 1: I'm a hacker who can't throw a punch but who can talk his way out of a lot
Player 2: I'm a master grifter who can convince people I'm anyone and sometimes multi people...
Player 3: I'm a theif, I've worked alone because I'm kind of crazy, but I can kind of hold my own if a fight breaks out.
DM: My main NPC will be the guy who tracked all of you guys down to catch you, now after a horrible incident is turning to you for help... this will be great a game of mostly RP and no real combats...
Player 4: I'm a hitter, I hurt people and kill people...

It can be worked put just see Eliot

 

[Sunseeker]

This left me scratching my head. Why would an illusionist suck in combat?

Oh sure, they might have low HP, lousy armour, and not be terribly good at sticking the pointy end of something into the other fellow, but the ability to alter the enemy's perception of the situation is a devastatingly effective combat ability.

Making the enemy see what you want them to see, while keeping them blind to the things you want hidden is a fundamental aspect of the art of war.

If I can make the enemy flee from an overwhelming force that doesn't exist, around obstacles that aren't there, into clear terrain that is actually the edge of a cliff …

I will posit that: because the illusionist does little more than create illusions, he is reliant on his comrades and surroundings. Combat with an illusionist in an open field will probably leave the poor illusionist out of spells and the guy he was illuioning quite unharmed. Fighting an illusionist on the edge of a mountain, well that's a different story. An illusionist still needs a way to defeat his enemy, not simply make him blunder around for a bit, so really an illusionist with nothing else(allies, environment, etc..) is probably going to only use their spells long enough to confuse their foe and run away.

Now, perhaps an illusionists powers go a little further than simply creating illusions, perhaps they can create very very specific illusions, like an illusion of your most terrifying nightmare inflicting "psychic" damage. Now our illusionist is a lot less situational and not wishing there was a cliff nearby, sure, he may still hope for it, but what fighter who ever bull-rushed their opponent doesn't want a nice handy cliff too?

I'd say I'm pretty darn sensational at combat.

Pretty darn "sensational" if he happens to be on a cliff, against a foe intelligent enough to be mislead by his illusions. Lets hope he doesn't fight any zombies, oozes or any other infinite number of mindless creatures. Lets also hope he doesn't fight anything blind...unless he can create illusions to mask his scent/sounds as well.

Combat is more than HP, to-hit, AC, damage dice and number of attacks. You can suck at all of those things and still be very effective in combat.

Effective in a highly situational, most likely very limited combat situation. That's not what I'd call "effective at combat". That's what I'd call "highly situational".

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

there are ways to make it work...

forget LotR for a moment. Think leverage...

Player 1: I'm a hacker who can't throw a punch but who can talk his way out of a lot
Player 2: I'm a master grifter who can convince people I'm anyone and sometimes multi people...
Player 3: I'm a theif, I've worked alone because I'm kind of crazy, but I can kind of hold my own if a fight breaks out.
DM: My main NPC will be the guy who tracked all of you guys down to catch you, now after a horrible incident is turning to you for help... this will be great a game of mostly RP and no real combats...
Player 4: I'm a hitter, I hurt people and kill people...

But the POINT of leverage is that they are attempting a Heist. The goal is to steal the money/macguffin. In a game where that's the point, it makes sense that each person's skill be equally useful to Completing the Heist. In a game that caters to this sort of play, combat should be extremely swift and take about as much time as sneaking past someone. One die roll to kill 5 people or one die roll to sneak past 5 people. That was the game doesn't linger on one person for too long.

Then again, D&D isn't typically a heist game. It is a game where the average plot is "Kill the enemies in order to get an object/stop a plot/solve a mystery" then everyone should be equally good at killing the enemies.

It can be worked put just see Eliot

I have no idea what this sentence means. I've looked at it for a couple of minutes now and I don't know how to "put just see Eliot".

I can guess that you are saying that Elliot is an example of how a combat character can work in a non-combat game. However, it should be noted that in addition to his combat skills he also appears very capable at acting, disguise, slight of hand, and improvising new plans when necessary. Basically, he has ALL of the powers of everyone else on the team when needed. Because it's a TV show and it's easy to write a character as having whatever skills he needs in order to accomplish to goal. You don't need to worry about whether it's fair to the other players or whether anyone will feel left out or overshadowed. The actors don't care, they get paid to show up and act. The characters don't care because they only do what you write them to do.

Since combat isn't a big part of Leverage as a show, the other characters don't really need combat skills. You can simply write a story that means they never have to fight anyone. In a role playing game, you as a DM have much less control over what happens. You can guide the game but ultimately the players decide their actions. If they all decide to go into a dungeon and challenge the dragon head on, your game has now become a combat game whether you intended it or not.

 

[Hussar]

Km, I think our Dark Sun game sheds some light on your idea. My character has a strong intimidate score. I've used that more than a few times to end fights.

And it typically feels very anticlimactic when I do.

How do you avoid that with you Sam character? What's the difference?

 

[Minigiant]

It all comes down to what the main themes to the game are.

One of the major themes of D&D is "dungeon combat with roughly equal PCs". So it is balanced around having PCs fighting in dungeons with about equal number of spotlight time. You can split the dungeon splotlight time over the PC's careers like in the older editions, over the day like in 3e, or cut up each encounter like 4e.

If a major theme is "battlefield combat" like most RTSs and many wargames, you balance the game around that.

If a major theme is "unit and building management" like a 4X game, you balance the game around that.

If a major theme is "acquisition of titles and land" like CKII or ASoIaf, you balance the game around that.

And for each of these you can balance for scope. You can make it balance around real time, weekly, daily, monthly, yearly, or eras depending on scope.

America might be considered pretty average or weak in Civ 5. Most of the early game they lack advantages. But watch out if they explored, settled and bought all the Iron tiles, churned out swords, and hit Renaissance era.