D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[Mistwell]

You do know that the person leading the design for 3.0 was not Monte Cook? The original lead was Peter Adkison. When Adkison left the design team, he appointed Jonathan Tweet as lead designer (Skip Williams, "A Talk with Skip Williams" at montecook.com). This is further supported at the 13th Age page at Pelgrane Press in which Tweet states that he was the 3e lead designer.

I think he is referring to Monte Cook speaking at quite some length, repeatedly, about how he intentionally supported System Mastery benefits in 3e for players who with experienced achieved more system mastery over the game.

 

[Derren]

Whatever schtick you were going for, you picked the wrong race/class combo.

Except that in a role playing game there are no "schticks" you go for. You play a role, a fictitious character with his strengths or weaknesses.

If your only goal is only to play a walking combo or damage dispenser please go play Descent or other board games and let RPGs alone.

 

[Incenjucar]

I have indeed been referring to Monte's lovely Essay of Revealing. He's not the only one involved, but he remains an influential voice, including for 5E before he bailed.

 

[Halivar]

Except that in a role playing game there are no "schticks" you go for. You play a role, a fictitious character with his strengths or weaknesses.

If your only goal is only to play a walking combo or damage dispenser please go play Descent or other board games and let RPGs alone.

I didn't say anything about damage, or even combat.

EDIT: I offered the half-elf bard as an example of a trap option, no matter what "strength" you're going for, with the obvious exception of rolling Diplomacy to "simulate" roleplay.

EDIT EDIT: I know tone doesn't really come across very well in a written medium like internet message boards, but your second paragraph comes off as very condescending and snooty, as well as completely at odds with the history of D&D, and table-top RPG's in general.

 

[Greg K]

you do know Cook was A designer on the game

Key point being "A" designer. He was one member of a team and not the lead. He is also not the person credited for the PHB. People keep bashing him as if it was all his fault. He was one person on the design team

and he claimed in later interviews he PURPOSLY built in trap options for system mastery to be rewarded...

Are you referring to the Ivory Tower Game Design article from his old site? If so, he used "we" and not "I" indicating it was a team decision.

So, if people want to criticize the team for the decision, it is cool. If they want to criticize the lead, because they are the one, ultimately, in charge, I am fine. However singling out Monte when he was only a member of the team and not the person in charge of the 3.0 design team seems misguided if not ignorant.

 

[Derren]

I didn't say anything about damage, or even combat.

EDIT: I offered the half-elf bard as an example of a trap option, no matter what "strength" you're going for, with the obvious exception of rolling Diplomacy to "simulate" roleplay.

You can substitue diplomacy, skill or anything else for combat if you insist. That doesn't change that you do not want to play a half-elf bard, you want to play a strength. A +10 in Diplomacy or a 3D6+8.

 

[SteveC]

This thread makes me shudder. At the same time I'm very thankful for 4E, since it largely removed discussions like this: just about every character class in the game was able to contribute to an encounter. The few odd clunkers that didn't came late in the development cycle where the edition was losing it's focus.

On some levels the "combat balance is important/characters should be balanced vs is not and they all are" argument is like an old friend come home after a few years, maybe going off to college.

If this is what we're going to be talking about with Next, UGH. I hope this argument learned something in the last few years, maybe it took a philosophy course or two...

 

[Halivar]

You can substitue diplomacy, skill or anything else for combat if you insist. That doesn't change that you do not want to play a half-elf bard, you want to play a strength. A +10 in Diplomacy or a 3D6+8.

Well you are correct that I have little to no interest in running or playing in a game with mediocre and non-heroic adventurers. And I think such characters are outside of the mainstream D&D experience as it has been played for these 30 odd years.

 

[Derren]

If this is what we're going to be talking about with Next, UGH. I hope this argument learned something in the last few years, maybe it took a philosophy course or two...

And I really hope that this discussion will happen more often. D&D can in my eyes not survive when it continues its way of becoming a combat tabletop and devaluing the idea of role playing.
I shudder at how many people here show a complete disregard of role playing and see their characters as nothing more than a walking combo or modifier.

 

[Greg K]

I have indeed been referring to Monte's lovely Essay of Revealing.

Icenjucar,
Do you have a link? I, probably, have read it in the past. Was it a post from his site or from WOTC's when he was, temporarily, working on 5e? I did a google search for Essay of Revealing which just turned up this thread. The Wayback Machine also did not have the article on his site.