D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad

[Neonchameleon]

This is pretty much what I'd like, too: the support of the game in making a character that is NOT a combatant (or explorer, or face).

4e Skill Challenges don't support that very well out of the box, due to their ability to have any skill contribute to success if the DM permits it.

Let me check if I've understood you. 4e skill challenges do not support that very well out of the box because if the DM chooses to ignore both the rules of the game and the guidance given and instead make up house rules that go against the letter and spirit of the rules presented they do not do a very good job.

Tell me what game mechanic in any system will survive the DM houseruling it in such a way that it is no longer fit for purpose?

 

[keterys]

It's odd, but I've repeatedly seen some posts that turn having some PCs which are okay at combat and some PCs which are good at combat to "all PCs are equal at combat". It seemed out of place the first time, so I tried to be really clear the next few times, but it keeps coming back to it.

Even in systems that claim equal combat parity, they really don't have that, so I think it's safe to drop completely equal combat capabilities as an objection. They'll always _try_ to have the fighter be all combat all the time, and some other classes like the rogue or bard have more non-combat stuff. Even if I'm not entirely clear that supports the fiction (courtly knights, thieving barbarians, acrobatic duelists, etc), it's _D&D_ legacy at this point.

Now, if you really do want all rogues to suck at combat (as opposed to just the rogues who choose to do so), that's probably still worth discussion to figure out why.

4e Skill Challenges don't support that very well out of the box, due to their ability to have any skill contribute to success if the DM permits it.

I'll say - you may have had SkC run very differently than I have and do (across a number of DMs, groups, and adventures). Benchpressing the King for your (Athletics-Diplomacy) check isn't really common, so they don't work the way they maybe have for you. Even in a situation where the DM is good with it, note it may not pay off - a fighter with Diplomacy +10 and Athletics +20 may need a Hard Athletics instead of an Easy Diplomacy, and actually be more likely to fail.

That said, we don't have to worry about SkCs in 5e, we know this. So, doesn't really matter.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Let me check if I've understood you. 4e skill challenges do not support that very well out of the box because if the DM chooses to ignore both the rules of the game and the guidance given and instead make up house rules that go against the letter and spirit of the rules presented they do not do a very good job.

Tell me what game mechanic in any system will survive the DM houseruling it in such a way that it is no longer fit for purpose?

I don't know where you get the impression that a DM has to ignore the rules

Give some thought to which skills you select here, keeping in mind the goal of involving all the players in the action. You know what skills your player characters are good at, so make sure to include some chances for every character to shine. In general, it's a good idea to include a mix of interaction skills (Bluff, Diplomacy), knowledge-based skills (Arcana, Nature), and physical skills (Athletics, Acrobatics) in the challenge.
...
As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it. If a player wants to use a skill you didn't identify as a primary skill in the challenge, however, then the DC for using that secondary skill is hard....In addition, a secondary skill can never be used by a single character more than once in a challenge.

A DC bump and a "one time only!" caveat is not enough in a challenge set up so that everyone can always use their best skills as a matter of course to make someone feel like they're doing something special.

This ain't house rule territory. It's right there in the instructions for creating a skill challenge.

I'll say - you may have had SkC run very differently than I have and do (across a number of DMs, groups, and adventures). Benchpressing the King for your (Athletics-Diplomacy) check isn't really common, so they don't work the way they maybe have for you. Even in a situation where the DM is good with it, note it may not pay off - a fighter with Diplomacy +10 and Athletics +20 may need a Hard Athletics instead of an Easy Diplomacy, and actually be more likely to fail.

I know Skill Challenges are sort of Rorschach blots as far as 4e goes, because they're really open-ended, and I'm sure DMs do lots of different things with them. Still, I think the DMG quote above is pretty clear about what the intent is: everyone should contribute equally to a SC. And that's the thing that causes the problem.

That said, we don't have to worry about SkCs in 5e, we know this. So, doesn't really matter.

I think the risk is less about the SC primarily, and more about the mindset that lead to that being considered a good idea. If everyone needs to always contribute equally, then the idea of me having fun playing a 5e thief that isn't a great combatant is off the table, and that'd be a problem.

 

[Guest 85555]

It's odd, but I've repeatedly seen some posts that turn having some PCs which are okay at combat and some PCs which are good at combat to "all PCs are equal at combat". It seemed out of place the first time, so I tried to be really clear the next few times, but it keeps coming back to it.

Even in systems that claim equal combat parity, they really don't have that, so I think it's safe to drop completely equal combat capabilities as an objection. They'll always _try_ to have the fighter be all combat all the time, and some other classes like the rogue or bard have more non-combat stuff. Even if I'm not entirely clear that supports the fiction (courtly knights, thieving barbarians, acrobatic duelists, etc), it's _D&D_ legacy at this point.

Now, if you really do want all rogues to suck at combat (as opposed to just the rogues who choose to do so), that's probably still worth discussion to figure out why.

there is probably a lot of middle ground being missed here and it isn't always easy to communicate your point in these threads, so I supsect a good deal of misunderstanding has crept in (how many of us have responded rapidly to a post without really digesting it or asking for further clarification?).

i guess I would say "sucking at combat" is subjective and relative, so we could possibly be meaning different things by it. I don't need the thief to fight like a magic user, but I am genuinely happier with the 2E combag dynamic, where thieves usually get one chance to do a backstab (typically at the start of comat if they set themselves up for it, or possibly during if they are clever) bu generally are not terribly effective (they have things to do, but these are minor contributions). I prefer this to the 3E rogue, which to me felt like it was going more in the commando direction and less in the thief direction. To me 4E seemed to continue that trajectory. Why I lke this, one reason at least, is it really nudges you away from thinking only about combat (even when combat is occuring). The classic image of the thief slinking off to steal the dragon's gold while the other members of the party fight t leaps to mind, or the thief scouting out traps and hiding from enemies to spy on them. It. Is just preference. It may not be what ends up in Next (wotc needs to decide based on what they think people want). I think it is fair though to express what we do like and don't. And i think it is okay to like D&D that has more room for things aside from combat (like exploration, investigation, social interaction and city adventures).

I think we are also seeing in this thread and in a couple of others, people have very different attitudes and expectations when it comes to mechanics and what they are supposed to achieve. That is okay. We don't all have to agree on that stuff.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't know where you get the impression that a DM has to ignore the rules

Possibly from the rulebooks themselves? The ones that say that you are meant to set the skills that can be used in advance? Possibly from the skill descriptions that say what the skills actually do?

Yes, it is good when planning a skill challenge to set it up so that a wide range of skills can be used (just one reason skill challenges are not complex skill checks). You'll also note that one of the possibilities for secondary skills is that they don't provide a success towards the skill challenge - just a bonus to subsequent skills.

I know Skill Challenges are sort of Rorschach blots as far as 4e goes, because they're really open-ended, and I'm sure DMs do lots of different things with them. Still, I think the DMG quote above is pretty clear about what the intent is: everyone should contribute equally to a SC. And that's the thing that causes the problem.

And I think that you've committed the fallacy of the excluded middle there in misreading the intent of the DMG. The goal of skill challenges is that everyone should be able to contribute. And that people should be rewarded for finding creative methods of using skills that would not normally be relevant.

What causes the problem is DMs neither using the rules as written (which, in the initial example, don't allow Intimidate to be used on a persuasion skill challenge, instead making it an automatic fail), nor the rules are intended (which very much intend the GM to use common sense about what is plausible).

I think the risk is less about the SC primarily, and more about the mindset that lead to that being considered a good idea. If everyone needs to always contribute equally,

If everyone needs to always contribute equally then we are in the land of Harrison Bergeron. We wouldn't have roleplaying statistics - all statistics would be exactly equal. We certainly wouldn't have the fighter with three skills, and the rogue with six while the wizard has Ritual Caster. The idea that "everyone needs to always contribute equally" is nothing but a straw man and I wish people would stop making this blatantly obvious straw man because it undermines any belief I have that they are both discussing things in good faith and have even the most basic understanding of what a character sheet, skills, powers, and attribute scores actually are.

What 4e has is the idea that everyone needs to be able to contribute. That there should always be something constructive that they can do, and the best plan shouldn't be for the rest of the party to just sit down and keep mute while the bard is talking. This in no way means that the bard isn't the star of the social interaction.

What it means is that, to use an analogy, the bard is the lead singer in 4e for that specific song and the rest of the party for that period are effective backing singers, drummers, or guitarists. In more normal models the bard would instead be a soloist where the best thing the rest of the party could do would be to sit down and shut up rather than join in the improvised jam and possibly produce some excellent riffs of their own.

 

[herrozerro]

About the whole Combat thing. I prefer the Savage Worlds route. You can have a character who has no fighting skills, but still contribute in a meaningful way via tests of will or tricks. The problem with applying this to something like 4e, is that the support options suck for the most part. Doing anything other than an attempted attack is for the most part useless or overpowered if there is some kind of stun or other debilitating status effect option.

In my savage worlds game, I have at least one non combatant at the moment, but that doesn't mean that when stuff starts to go down that he is cowering in the corner. He is distracting enemies or using tests of will. As an intelligence trick once he threw a can of beans and yelled "grenade!", causing most of the enemies to become shaken.

But that works in savage worlds better because it really only has 1 real status condition, shaken.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Possibly from the rulebooks themselves? The ones that say that you are meant to set the skills that can be used in advance? Possibly from the skill descriptions that say what the skills actually do?
...
The idea that "everyone needs to always contribute equally" is nothing but a straw man and I wish people would stop making this blatantly obvious straw man because it undermines any belief I have that they are both discussing things in good faith and have even the most basic understanding of what a character sheet, skills, powers, and attribute scores actually are.

I don't know how you can read a bit like "make sure to include chances for every character to shine" and somehow understand that to mean that the rules tell you that you shouldn't have everyone shining in a skill challenge. I'm not sure I'm capable of easily understanding the mangled logic that would go into that exegesis. The thrust of the text seems fairly transparent to me: make your skill challenges so that everyone in the party can be great at them.

What 4e has is the idea that everyone needs to be able to contribute. That there should always be something constructive that they can do, and the best plan shouldn't be for the rest of the party to just sit down and keep mute while the bard is talking. This in no way means that the bard isn't the star of the social interaction.

What it means is that, to use an analogy, the bard is the lead singer in 4e for that specific song and the rest of the party for that period are effective backing singers, drummers, or guitarists. In more normal models the bard would instead be a soloist where the best thing the rest of the party could do would be to sit down and shut up rather than join in the improvised jam and possibly produce some excellent riffs of their own.

Except that if you use the rules as they are written, any interaction skill challenge should also include ways that knowledge and physical skills can contribute to success, and should also allow people to use any skill they can think of an excuse to use. So the Bard isn't very special at that.

But, hey, at least now we seem to be in agreement that having areas where you suck (be less good, be not very good, not contribute as much) is an important part of making a D&D fantasy hero!

 

[keterys]

I don't know how you can read a bit like "make sure to include chances for every character to shine"

Since I used the same terminology in one of my other posts, randomly, let's touch on that.

Let's say you have three combats. In the first, there are a ton of goblins and the rogue is fairly ineffective, the fighter decently effective, and the wizard shines.

In the second combat, you have a necromancer with a couple of ghasts in the way. The cleric shines by blowing up the ghosts, and the rogue shines by sneaking up and backstabbing the necromancer. The wizard and fighter were both fairly ineffective.

In the third combat, the fighter holds off a stone giant for the entire battle while his friends get the princess to safety, and he shines in that respect, while everyone else actually ignores the combat in favor of getting people out faster.

In each combat, different people shone.

So, if the challenge is to escape pursuit, perhaps the fighter can shine with Athletics when he brings people up the impossible cliff, the wizard can shine with knowledge when he knows a secret route to the fiery forest, the rogue can shine when he acrobatically leads them through the pitfalls of said forest. But the fighter is still allowed to suck at dodging the traps or knowledge checks.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't know how you can read a bit like "make sure to include chances for every character to shine" and somehow understand that to mean that the rules tell you that you shouldn't have everyone shining in a skill challenge.

Because giving everyone the chance to shine involves people all making it to the start line rather than to the finish line. What they do is up to them. (And bench pressing the throne with the king on it isn't shining under most circumstances.

The thrust of the text seems fairly transparent to me: make your skill challenges so that everyone in the party can be great at them.

To me, it's equally transparent. Make your skill challenges so that everyone can be good at them, and have a chance to leap for greatness if they see the opportunity. You take them to the start line; they choose how to cross the finish line.

Except that if you use the rules as they are written, any interaction skill challenge should also include ways that knowledge and physical skills can contribute to success, and should also allow people to use any skill they can think of an excuse to use. So the Bard isn't very special at that.

First, the bard has it easy in using skills in social interaction skill challenges. Second, the bard gets Words of Friendship meaning they blow the curve mathematically anywhere they can use diplomacy. Third, there are things called secondary skills in skill challenges. Fourth a good reason and a transparent excuse aren't the same thing at all.

So the bard is better numerically due to Words of Friendship and has a much easier time bringing their skill to bear. This doesn't mean that the fighter holding the gates closed against half the palace guard while the bard sweet talks the cardinal isn't shining. It means that the fighter needs to work much harder to shine and is shining in a different way from the bard. The Bard is therefore special. That someone who worked harder and played smarter might overturn the Bard's advantage in being the focal character of the skill challenge does not mean that the Bard isn't special and isn't the easy character to make focal this time. It just means that hard work, skill, and luck can be more than a match for the raw ability that the bard has.

But, hey, at least now we seem to be in agreement that having areas where you suck (be less good, be not very good, not contribute as much) is an important part of making a D&D fantasy hero!

The problem isn't that Sam was trying to be less good at areas. It was that the way Sam was trying to be less good was pure jackass behaviour. If Sam wants to be less good - and play the role of backing singer in the big fight scenes, stabbing enemies that get too close and trying to stay alive then that's fine. But that's not what was happening in your example. You wanted Sam, as the non-combatant (note: not weak combatant, non-combatant) to be the person who takes out the dragon. You wanted Sam, as the person who can't fight well, to be the person the big fights revolve around. You wanted Sam to be a spotlight stealing hog.

So I do not take back a single thing I said. The problem isn't that everyone has to be equally good. They don't and they never have. It was that your example is a textbook example of how not to do such things.

 

[Guest 85555]

Because giving everyone the chance to shine involves people all making it to the start line rather than to the finish line. What they do is up to them. (And bench pressing the throne with the king on it isn't shining under most circumstances.



To me, it's equally transparent. Make your skill challenges so that everyone can be good at them, and have a chance to leap for greatness if they see the opportunity. You take them to the start line; they choose how to cross the finish line.



First, the bard has it easy in using skills in social interaction skill challenges. Second, the bard gets Words of Friendship meaning they blow the curve mathematically anywhere they can use diplomacy. Third, there are things called secondary skills in skill challenges. Fourth a good reason and a transparent excuse aren't the same thing at all.

So the bard is better numerically due to Words of Friendship and has a much easier time bringing their skill to bear. This doesn't mean that the fighter holding the gates closed against half the palace guard while the bard sweet talks the cardinal isn't shining. It means that the fighter needs to work much harder to shine and is shining in a different way from the bard. The Bard is therefore special. That someone who worked harder and played smarter might overturn the Bard's advantage in being the focal character of the skill challenge does not mean that the Bard isn't special and isn't the easy character to make focal this time. It just means that hard work, skill, and luck can be more than a match for the raw ability that the bard has.



The problem isn't that Sam was trying to be less good at areas. It was that the way Sam was trying to be less good was pure jackass behaviour. If Sam wants to be less good - and play the role of backing singer in the big fight scenes, stabbing enemies that get too close and trying to stay alive then that's fine. But that's not what was happening in your example. You wanted Sam, as the non-combatant (note: not weak combatant, non-combatant) to be the person who takes out the dragon. You wanted Sam, as the person who can't fight well, to be the person the big fights revolve around. You wanted Sam to be a spotlight stealing hog.

So I do not take back a single thing I said. The problem isn't that everyone has to be equally good. They don't and they never have. It was that your example is a textbook example of how not to do such things.

I the problem here is we are looking at general rules and not specific examples (i.e. I dont like games where everyone does X in the manner of Y). And then we just end uo disputing the particular meaning of X and Y. These explanations we offer for why we do or dont like something can fall apart depending on the language we choose and how well communicate our meaning (and there will likely be contradiction because of details we are missing).

so with that in mind, what I would say is, whatever language one uses to the describe it, the role approach used in 4E, just wasn't for me. I think I prefer games without that kind of effort going into making sure everyone contributes to combat somehow. Again, it is only my opinion. I don't feel roles are bad or others shouldn't like them. But for me to get into next it is going to need to move away from that approach. I am sure i can handle a bit of it, as it was present to varying degrees in different editions. Just don't want it to the degree it was present in 4E. But maybe i am an outlier and the playtests are telling wotc that most players do want this. I won't be upset one way or the other. It is either a game that i end up playing or i don't. But there are so many rpgs and variationsdof D&D out there now, whateve next ends up being, i won't be out if the cold without a system.