D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad

[Guest 85555]

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)

I think these are reasonable expectations on your part, my tastes just run in a a slightly different direction regarding this.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The thing that really sold me on the idea that balance was bad (or at least badly overrated) was playing modern rpgs. Whether d20-based or not, none of them seem to have any remotely similar expectations. Neither do any of the sci-fi rpgs I've played. The class-based approach is distinctive to D&D, but not unique. The idea that every class is supposed to be equally geared towards and skilled at fighting seems to be to be exclusively a legacy thing for D&D that holds over from its wargame heritage.

For example, one d20 Modern game I played had me as a stand-up comedian and other players as soldiers or likewise combat-ready things. We had no idea what the game was about. When it turned out to be pretty combat-oriented survival stuff, it became clear that my character was not going to do much during those parts. I didn't complain. I just played my character, and experienced the situation as an entertainer going through a survival scenario.. It was fun.

I don't understand why it's any different if you change that to D&D and change the characters to a bard and the fighter. Of course the fighter is better at fighting. It's a fighter. I see no problem with that. In fact, I think it's a negative that if I want to play a bard I have to gain 3/4 BAB (or the equivalent per edition) and various other combat abilities. After playing in freer systems, it becomes really clear how you're being forced into a box, and as a player I hate that.

 

[The Human Target]

I find it weird that people who want to play an action/adventure game with rules that focus very heavily on combat want to have the option of playing a character bad at combat.

To me its like complaining about how you want to play Street Fighter but don't like that you can't be a Certified Public Accountant.

Though if you want to not be a combatant, no one is forcing your Rogue to flank and Sneak Attack.

Though if I was a player in a D&D game with someone who refused to be a helpful combatant in some capacity, I would be having a private word with the DM.

 

[keterys]

That's not necessarily an aspect of modern RPGs. It's true of GURPS, WoD, Traveller, all sorts of old games. The trick is that it's not generally a selling point of D&D. D&D has different brand expectations and needs than, say, Fate, Leverage, or Dr. Who. For good or ill.

Much as I'd not want D&D to become point-based. Or for combat to become a single ability check (Ex: Okay, you find 6 goblins and an ogre - everyone make a Combat DC 18. If you fail by more than 5, you get knocked unconscious.)

 

[Guest 85555]

I find it weird that people who want to play an action/adventure game with rules that focus very heavily on combat want to have the option of playing a character bad at combat.

To me its like complaining about how you want to play Street Fighter but don't like that you can't be a Certified Public Accountant.

Though if you want to not be a combatant, no one is forcing your Rogue to flank and Sneak Attack.

Though if I was a player in a D&D game with someone who refused to be a helpful combatant in some capacity, I would be having a private word with the DM,

d&d is just as much about things like exploration as combat. A lot of my AD&D sessions revolve around avoiding combat in the first place. It all boils down to the expectation of your group and style of play .

 

[Hussar]

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.

OTOH, I almost never saw single classed thieves in AD&D (1e or 2e). Why would you bother? The thief xp table was so low, that adding on any class basically only sacrificed one level in that class for X+1 levels of thief. So, your wizard might be 4th level or a 3/4 wizard/thief. Considering thief was unlimited in levels for all races, you could pretty easily choose a race/class mix that topped out in the double digits and the racial level limits never appeared.

I never really saw the point in single classed thieves. Why sit out half the game.

For example, one d20 Modern game I played had me as a stand-up comedian and other players as soldiers or likewise combat-ready things. We had no idea what the game was about. When it turned out to be pretty combat-oriented survival stuff, it became clear that my character was not going to do much during those parts. I didn't complain. I just played my character, and experienced the situation as an entertainer going through a survival scenario.. It was fun.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6244279#ixzz2qFUYKYVG

But, do you not see why that might not be fun for other people? If you weren't having fun, would you be stuck playing that character or would the DM let you switch it out? To me, I'd be turning to the DM and having some pretty strong words about why he was wasting my time. Why one earth would you start a campaign and not know what the campaign was about. Sheesh, everyone else at the table was on the same page.

One of these things is not like the others...

 

[pemerton]

The thing that really sold me on the idea that balance was bad (or at least badly overrated) was playing modern rpgs. Whether d20-based or not, none of them seem to have any remotely similar expectations. Neither do any of the sci-fi rpgs I've played. The class-based approach is distinctive to D&D, but not unique. The idea that every class is supposed to be equally geared towards and skilled at fighting seems to be to be exclusively a legacy thing for D&D that holds over from its wargame heritage.

I'm not sure if by "modern" you mean "recently designed" or "set in the contemporary era". I think the latter?

Anyway, those games are quite different in their genre and setting orienation. D&D was inspired by mediaeval romances, more recent fiction based upon such (eg Tolkien) and pulp fantasy (eg REH). Personal combat is a recurrent story element in such fiction. Indeed, its protagonists are frequently warriors, and prove their worth as such (Conan, Aragorn, Merry and Pippin, Eowyn, Lancelot, Arthur; Frodo, Sam and (in some versions) Gawain and Parsifal are deliberate exceptions, drawing on and emphasising certain aspects of the Christian tradition).

one d20 Modern game I played had me as a stand-up comedian and other players as soldiers or likewise combat-ready things. We had no idea what the game was about. When it turned out to be pretty combat-oriented survival stuff, it became clear that my character was not going to do much during those parts. I didn't complain. I just played my character, and experienced the situation as an entertainer going through a survival scenario.. It was fun.

As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] already pointed out, many RPGers (perhaps even a majority?) do not play the game simply to experience "being there". They want a more proactive role in the game. D&D has traditionally been aimed at those players (2nd ed AD&D was something of an exceptin). It is therefore simply not feasible (in market/commercial terms) for D&D to be designed without having regard to the mechanical capacity of different PC builds to influence the game.

 

[Guest 85555]

OTOH, I almost never saw single classed thieves in AD&D (1e or 2e). Why would you bother? The thief xp table was so low, that adding on any class basically only sacrificed one level in that class for X+1 levels of thief. So, your wizard might be 4th level or a 3/4 wizard/thief. Considering thief was unlimited in levels for all races, you could pretty easily choose a race/class mix that topped out in the double digits and the racial level limits never appeared.

I never really saw the point in single classed thieves. Why sit out half the game.



But, do you not see why that might not be fun for other people? If you weren't having fun, would you be stuck playing that character or would the DM let you switch it out? To me, I'd be turning to the DM and having some pretty strong words about why he was wasting my time. Why one earth would you start a campaign and not know what the campaign was about. Sheesh, everyone else at the table was on the same page.

One of these things is not like the others...

Our experiences differ somewhat. I did see lots of multi class characters, including wizard/thief but saw plenty of straight up thieves as well. Just one minor point, in 2E thief was not unlimited for all races, only for humans. Dwarves, elves and half elves cap at 12, gnomes at 13 and halflings at 15. If you are using the optional rule allowing demo humans with exceptional scores in prime stats then those can go a bit higher.

 

[Bluenose]

The thing that really sold me on the idea that balance was bad (or at least badly overrated) was playing modern rpgs. Whether d20-based or not, none of them seem to have any remotely similar expectations. Neither do any of the sci-fi rpgs I've played. The class-based approach is distinctive to D&D, but not unique. The idea that every class is supposed to be equally geared towards and skilled at fighting seems to be to be exclusively a legacy thing for D&D that holds over from its wargame heritage.

For example, one d20 Modern game I played had me as a stand-up comedian and other players as soldiers or likewise combat-ready things. We had no idea what the game was about. When it turned out to be pretty combat-oriented survival stuff, it became clear that my character was not going to do much during those parts. I didn't complain. I just played my character, and experienced the situation as an entertainer going through a survival scenario.. It was fun.

I don't understand why it's any different if you change that to D&D and change the characters to a bard and the fighter. Of course the fighter is better at fighting. It's a fighter. I see no problem with that. In fact, I think it's a negative that if I want to play a bard I have to gain 3/4 BAB (or the equivalent per edition) and various other combat abilities. After playing in freer systems, it becomes really clear how you're being forced into a box, and as a player I hate that.

The solution to not being "forced into a box" by your class abilities is, really, not to play D&D or any of the other class-based games where your character's abilities automatically advance in a way that boosts their combat skills. I'll note that D20 Modern is one of those games, even if you are a Charismatic Hero your BAB and hit points advance regardless of your wishes. There are class based games which don't do that, Rolemaster for example. There you could get a character whose abilities increase every level, but who doesn't put anything into advancing their weapon skills or "hit points" - I can't remember the term RM uses, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] will know it.

Though given the genre expectation of D&D, based on Appendix N in the original books, I don't think a character who can't contribute anything in combat is part of the basic paradigm. And perhaps should not be, though that's an entirely separate discussion.

 

[Incenjucar]

While a non-combat-oriented game set in the worlds of D&D could be quite interesting, it's not really how the game is built, and games of mix-capability characters are similarly a new area. You can certainly deal with those complications at your table and figure out a way to make it work, but this is more or less home brewing. That said, rules for playing in teams of non-standard adventurers or even non-adventurers could be something that gets brought up in a Dragon article or even a splat if enough people ask for it.