NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6239970" data-attributes="member: 58197">The common refrain I'm seeing from the anti-balance folks is, "I should be able to make a character who sucks at combat and is awesome in social or exploration scenarios."Worth noting, this is not actually an "anti-balance" position. It's an argument for changing the scope of balance, to balance across all three pillars at once instead of within each pillar. 5E is doing some cross-pillar balancing already. The rogue is better at social and exploration scenarios than the fighter but strictly worse in combat (slightly lower damage, significantly weaker defense). I would argue that taking this to extremes, where you build characters that are actually useless in combat and completely dominate somewhere else, is undesirable for the standard PHB classes, because it leads to situations where half the time Sneaky McRogue is sitting around doing nothing, and the other half everyone else is sitting around watching Sneaky do everything. If provided at all, this should be an advanced option in supplemental material.(I do hope that we get at least a few options for "support" combatants, though--characters whose combat contributions don't involve dishing out damage. Someone brought up the idea of a "white mage" who only heals and buffs, never attacking. I think this is a great idea and I want to see it. Likewise, I'm a big fan of the control wizard who would never dream of dirtying his hands with bat guano, and the trickster rogue who distracts and confounds opponents instead of stabbing them to death. Such concepts are challenging to design, but IMO worth the effort.)My own position is broadly in the pro-balance camp, but I do think 4E sacrificed too much in pursuit of the perfect combat balance. In particular, cramming every class into the rigid AEDU structure was a huge mistake. It created unnecessary complexity (fighters getting a dozen minor variations on "I hit it with my sword") and ill-served players who weren't fond of the AEDU mechanic. In traditional D&D, if you hate Vancian magic, you have the option of playing a noncaster or (in 3E) a spontaneous caster. In 4E, if you hate AEDU, you're screwed, or at least you were until Essentials. Fortunately, 5E seems to be doing much better at maintaining solid balance while preserving the diversity of class mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification