D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad

[Guest 85555]

As soon as that is actually what I said, you're welcome to be bored with it.

Fair enough, i may have misunderstood you, or i may not have been very good at communicating what I had in mind. The stuff that i find boring, though i think lots of people do like it so it isfn't a judgement against it, are things like combat roles, where everyone is given some equal role to play in combat (even if they are different in different areas of combat, everyone has about an equal contribution). Perhaps you did not mean that, and I misundertood, but that is what my comment was addressing.

 

[keterys]

I prefer if every character has the opportunity to be useful in every combat*, and to shine in some combats. Preferably, different PCs will shine in different combats.

For example, if the wizard is good at clearing the goblins with the fireball, the rogue is good at taking out the wizard in the backlines, and the fighter is good at "dueling" the storm giant. But all can contribute _some_ reasonable baseline to every combat, even if they don't excel at it.

* Note that opportunity leaves open the possibility that someone will choose not to take that opportunity. The fighter with no Strength and wizard with no combat spells can exist, for those who want them, though I sincerely hope the system has enough guidance to steer new players away from doing them accidentally.

 

[Guest 85555]

I prefer if every character has the opportunity to be useful in every combat*, and to shine in some combats. Preferably, different PCs will shine in different combats.

For example, if the wizard is good at clearing the goblins with the fireball, the rogue is good at taking out the wizard in the backlines, and the fighter is good at "dueling" the storm giant. But all can contribute _some_ reasonable baseline to every combat, even if they don't excel at it.

* Note that opportunity leaves open the possibility that someone will choose not to take that opportunity. The fighter with no Strength and wizard with no combat spells can exist, for those who want them, though I sincerely hope the system has enough guidance to steer new players away from doing them accidentally.

And that is an entirely fair approach. I think because i cut my teeth on 2E, where thieves and bards were not expected to do much in combat, i am comfortable with some characters being essentially non combat classes, with focus on other aspects of the game.

 

[Marshall]

And that is an entirely fair approach. I think because i cut my teeth on 2E, where thieves and bards were not expected to do much in combat, i am comfortable with some characters being essentially non combat classes, with focus on other aspects of the game.

??? Thats not a feature of 2e, thats an abject design failure. Thieves were totally incompetent at anything until double digit levels, when both Backstab and thief skills finally got to a level where they accomplished something, and Bards were a poor mans Wizard, with slightly better combat stats. Neither was designed for non-combat, they were just so incompetent overall that players latched onto what they were least bad at.

 

[Guest 85555]

??? Thats not a feature of 2e, thats an abject design failure. Thieves were totally incompetent at anything until double digit levels, when both Backstab and thief skills finally got to a level where they accomplished something, and Bards were a poor mans Wizard, with slightly better combat stats. Neither was designed for non-combat, they were just so incompetent overall that players latched onto what they were least bad at.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but It doesn't match my expeience with the game. I find 2E thieves to be quite suitable for non-combat parts of the game. I actually far prefered 2E theives to 3E thieves, but YMMV.

 

[Marshall]

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but It doesn't match my expeience with the game. I find 2E thieves to be quite suitable for non-combat parts of the game. I actually far prefered 2E theives to 3E thieves, but YMMV.

You must have had some serious house rules in play. Sub 50% chances to accomplish your classes basic functions and having to jump through hoop after hoop and beg the DM to let you use your primary combat skill that even when it works just puts you in the neighborhood of a single 2HW attack from the Fighter.... yeah, its only my opinion.

 

[Guest 85555]

You must have had some serious house rules in play. Sub 50% chances to accomplish your classes basic functions and having to jump through hoop after hoop and beg the DM to let you use your primary combat skill that even when it works just puts you in the neighborhood of a single 2HW attack from the Fighter.... yeah, its only my opinion.

Sure, at first level you have percentage chances below fifty percent on the whole (except climb walls which starts at a base of 60 and can be raised by 30 if you choose at first level. If you want to pump up pick pockets you can get it to about 45 percent at first for example. There are also racial and ability modifiers.k with those you can get it to about 55 or 65 percent. For first level those numbers seem about right to me (and it is a percentage chance, so it doesnt fluctuate as much as DCs do in say 3R. But you also get thirty points to spend each level (up to fifteen in a single category) and the thief advances faster than other classes. It doesnt take that long to bring things up, especially if you are focused on two skills. for me this works pretty well. What i like about backstab is it is more oriented for set up prior to combat. So i just find this system works better for my tastes. Used it for years and it drives fine. If you don't like it, you don't like it. And i am not going to try to convert you. But i dont think it is broken. Works very well in my experience (i think we just want different things, which is cool).

Keep in mind, a mage at first level is pretty weak at spell casting as well. So it isn't expected that you will be succeeding at everything out of the gate. First level was pretty brutal in AD&D compared to 3E (i have had more first level mages die in AD&D than any other classes).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I am pro balance, but

You must have had some serious house rules in play. Sub 50% chances to accomplish your classes basic functions and having to jump through hoop after hoop and beg the DM to let you use your primary combat skill that even when it works just puts you in the neighborhood of a single 2HW attack from the Fighter.... yeah, its only my opinion.

isn't it possible to get above 50% in them by 2nd or 3rd level?? Also we didn't really jump through hoops for Back stab, most encounters you got it once (it was the first encounter power I guess) inless you got lucky...

 

[keterys]

I've played lots of 2e rogues (and everything else, probably). My highest level PC was a bard (at least 23rd level).

It doesn't change my opinion that every class needs to be able to be okay at combat. Even if the bard is not good, because it excels at the other tiers, it should have some options that doesn't make it a detriment to the group in combat. (See Elan in Order of the Stick if you need inspiration)

But, seriously, ability to do passable melee attacks, a breadth of spells, songs which boost all your allies? Yeah, that's participating. The 3e Expert, for comparison, should not be a class offered to players (though it can be in a side supplement somewhere, that's fine).

Any newbie sitting down to play the game should be able to pick the class that sounds fun and participate in the game. It's fine if they're worse at some things (ex: combat) and better at other things (ex: interaction), but there's no excuse for being relatively useless or a liability. (Unless, again, the player chooses to neuter their character on purpose to make it happen)

 

[Guest 85555]

I am pro balance, but

isn't it possible to get above 50% in them by 2nd or 3rd level?? Also we didn't really jump through hoops for Back stab, most encounters you got it once (it was the first encounter power I guess) inless you got lucky...

The way it works is the base skills are all pretty low, round 10-15% except climb walls, which is 60 I believe. But you get sixty points to spread as you like at first level (with a max of thirty points toward a given skill). You also get racial and class modifiers (5-15% ). Each level after that you get thirty points with a max of fifteen points toward a given skill. So depending how you spend your points, you can definitely get over 50% by 2nd and 3rd level if you want. But this method isn't for everyone. I happen to like it more than later editions but that is just personal preference.