D&D 5E Why Balance is Bad

[keterys]

Roles were WotC trying to solve the problem that some classes didn't have enough identity to hang concepts on, and a way to have some bar for basic competency at some aspect of the game.

To be honest, they did a pretty bad job with them. There are strikers that are better controllers than other controllers, and vice versa. They never really figured out those roles correctly; and to be honest, I'm not sure "dealing damage" should ever be something exclusive to some characters and not others. Everyone should be able to do so, if they want.

I think roles are gone, at least in official keyword. They were still based on the concept of "Well, we want fighter/cleric/mage/rogue to be the right party, what's that mean" which is intrinsically D&D, so that won't change much. You still want someone who heals, someone frontline who stops monsters from eating your backline, someone who can take care of tough monsters, and someone who can take care of lots of little monsters. But maybe those will all be the paladin, while the bard does none of them.

Hopefully they'll manage that everyone has some niche and usefulness, at least.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I just see my position as adding to the mix of ways people can shine.

I want game where a player can make a character who doesn't shine in ANY combat, or in any exploration, but who contributes to the success of the adventure overall anyway, and who isn't relegated to the sidelines for significant amounts of real-world time.

Ultimately, "I'm bad at traps" or "I'm bad at area effects" isn't going to be a deciding factor on the success of a challenge. Sure, the fighter sucks at traps, but in the skill challenge to raid a trap-filled dungeon, the fighter isn't at a disadvantage if the rules say "everyone needs a chance to shine in each encounter," since even there, the fighter should be given a chance to shine if you're following the rules.

A druid might be good at Interaction, but only with wild animals. The game should be OK with that druid not being able to do much to convince the Baron to confess his crimes. A thief might choose to be not good at combat. That game should be OK with that thief not being able to do much to slay a dragon or kill some goblins.

Judging from the design and writing, 4e isn't that kind of game. Which is fine, it has made a choice that it can stand by and hold up as being made for a good reason. It's just not going to meet my needs. 5e might, if it abandons 4e's dedication to making sure everyone has a moment to shine in each encounter and instead adopts the earlier e's ideas of having everyone have a moment to shine within each adventure.

 

[keterys]

I want game where a player can make a character who doesn't shine in ANY combat, or in any exploration, but who contributes to the success of the adventure overall anyway, and who isn't relegated to the sidelines for significant amounts of real-world time.

That's fine, as long as the game doesn't _prevent_ you from making a character who can.

And I'll add that I'd like it to make sure the system stops you from shining in _every_ encounter. 3.5 wizard(/cleric/druid) syndrome.

Sure, the fighter sucks at traps, but in the skill challenge to raid a trap-filled dungeon, the fighter isn't at a disadvantage if the rules say "everyone needs a chance to shine in each encounter," since even there, the fighter should be given a chance to shine if you're following the rules.

I think you're overreading that statement. A chance to shine in each encounter means a _chance_, and that you _won't_ shine in every encounter.

A druid might be good at Interaction, but only with wild animals. The game should be OK with that druid not being able to do much to convince the Baron to confess his crimes.

Like, say, convincing the animals in the castle to assist in creating fear and doubt within the Baron (hordes of rats join his chamber to look at him, his horses turn away from him, etc) until he confesses?

A thief might choose to be not good at combat. That game should be OK with that thief not being able to do much to slay a dragon or kill some goblins.

As long as it's a choice, and it's not the system saying no rogue can be good at combat, absolutely.

instead adopts the earlier e's ideas of having everyone have a moment to shine within each adventure.

Eh, that's really not what I saw. Some classes just were better than other classes. Sometimes drastically so. And it would vary adventure to adventure - you'd have your "undead rampage" where the rogue and druid would both underperform, sometimes for extended periods. Like finding out after the campaign start that the campaign was shifting to focus around certain aspects, and suddenly certain classes were second class citizens for the entire campaign. Whether you were making the bard with tons of contacts thrown into the World's Largest Dungeon, the sneak attack rogue facing the invasion of the lich, his undead servants, and automatons, or whatever.

And certain level ranges kinda voided the usefulness of certain classes on their own. That and some DMs. I had some _very_ mixed luck with all of the rogue/bard skills in 2e, for example, where sometimes it was actually a _hindrance_ to make a roll, because a failure would put me in a worse position than someone who hadn't made a check at all.

Thankfully, 5e is doing a lot to avoid the monster type trumps class concept.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think roles are gone, at least in official keyword. They were still based on the concept of "Well, we want fighter/cleric/mage/rogue to be the right party, what's that mean" which is intrinsically D&D, so that won't change much. You still want someone who heals, someone frontline who stops monsters from eating your backline, someone who can take care of tough monsters, and someone who can take care of lots of little monsters. But maybe those will all be the paladin, while the bard does none of them.

east.

This is where i feel i may be at odds with some. I much prefer roles stretched over the campaign, than combat. So having a guy who soaks damage in the front line, a guy who heals and
buffs, a guy who takes tough monsters, etc seems all too focused on combat and i dont feel that previo editions (at least pre 3E) did this. Again, thieves were very much about exploration. Wizards condcte all over the map (depending on what spells they had). When combat roles are that clearly defined befoe the campaign even begins, it feels, to me at least, to much like sport. Somehow it loses someting fo me.

 

[keterys]

I dunno, it feels like it's part of the D&D experience to start a campaign and have a few people chime in with what they're playing then have the last couple people go:
"Nobody can deal with traps? Okay, I'm playing a kinda piratey rogue."
"... And I guess I'll play someone who heals, cause we need one of those. But someone else has to play the cleric next time, guys."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I dunno, it feels like it's part of the D&D experience to start a campaign and have a few people chime in with what they're playing then have the last couple people go:
"Nobody can deal with traps? Okay, I'm playing a kinda piratey rogue."
"... And I guess I'll play someone who heals, cause we need one of those. But someone else has to play the cleric next time, guys."

As a DM nothing annoyes me as much as a player pitching an idea they have worked on that you liked just because "Well SOMEONE HAS to play an X"

 

[Guest 85555]

I dunno, it feels like it's part of the D&D experience to start a campaign and have a few people chime in with what they're playing then have the last couple people go:
"Nobody can deal with traps? Okay, I'm playing a kinda piratey rogue."
"... And I guess I'll play someone who heals, cause we need one of those. But someone else has to play the cleric next time, guys."

That is entirely fair and I do that in some game. I am fine with the players negotiating to make sure all bases are covered. What I am not as fond of is game rigging it, so that all character cover a particular base in combat (trap finding I would consider non-combat). I

 

[keterys]

As a DM nothing annoyes me as much as a player pitching an idea they have worked on that you liked just because "Well SOMEONE HAS to play an X"

Absolutely agree.

But I don't think D&D Next is going to take that way. I'm guessing we'll see more of that than 4e (restoring sacred cows) and less of it than editions before that (loosing up some restrictions), but I think any system that manages to drop it entirely will be decried as "not D&D" instantly.

(Remembering one D&D 3.x campaign we did with no healers, where we'd just rest for days after combats. Never Again.)

 

[keterys]

That is entirely fair and I do that in some game. I am fine with the players negotiating to make sure all bases are covered. What I am not as fond of is game rigging it, so that all character cover a particular base in combat (trap finding I would consider non-combat). I

Does it matter that some aspects are non-combat? I mean, you could replace the healer with "The Face".

Having someone strong or smart is sometimes also a concern, though less so than a healer, trapper, face, in my experience.

 

[Guest 85555]

Does it matter that some aspects are non-combat? I mean, you could replace the healer with "The Face".

Having someone strong or smart is sometimes also a concern, though less so than a healer, trapper, face, in my experience.

To me it does. That is why, if they are going to think in terms of roles, I would like to see them think in terms of the adventure or the campaign, not just encounters. So while I didn't think the Exploration, Roleplay and Combat was the best way to group the pillars (haven't been following 5E a lot so may have those pillars a bit off), I did appreciate them looking at it that way. I like when you can have characters who are not so great at combat but might be really good at investigation or exploration for example. I think there are other ways to contribute to an adventure that don't necessarily involve combat and not every hero needs to be good at combat (Frodo wasn't particularly good at combat for example, but there was plenty for him to do in Lord of the Rings).

But I also think not ever party requires every base being covered. It can be just as interesting to be a group without a good face, or without meat shields.