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

[Halivar]

dwarf paladin is a mechanical no-no. -2 to your primary caster/ability stat, +2 to a fairly useless stat (wis). He had to sink a 17 into his cha just to get a 15 out of it. A paladin can live with a moderate cha if he upps Str and goes smite/power-attack or he can live with a mod Str if he goes high-cha caster/healer/smiter route, but in reality, he's average at both.

I dunnnoooow... having a +2 to Str AND Cha is not bad at all! With the PF smite evil, he has the same striking power as a Fighter with Str 18, with better saves to boot. Con boost is great. Not a damage dealer, but one hell of a tank.

Now, the optimal pick is human with Cha bonus. So the dwarf paladin is by no means min-maxed, but there will not be any aspect of the game where he will not have an opportunity to shine. Especially if your party is full of jerks who make him check for poison traps (I would!).

TWF is a fairly weak mix for a fighter. He is going to have to sink all his bumps into dex (which makes heavy armor a bit of a waste) to get Greater TWF, and he's trading reliable damage of a two-handed weapon (greatsword for example) for -2 to hit and double the attacks, plus by not pairing weapons, he doesn't get double duty out of the weapon focus/specialization tree.

With a +3/+3 Str/Dex, this guy is a potential beast with TWF. Obviously Weapon Focus is a must. Out the gate, you're only -3 behind each attack vs a greatsword fighter with 18 Str, with double the chance to crit at least once. I'd take rapiers or scimitars (not matching incurs added feat cost, but the Fighter will have more than enough to cover that), and focus on improving critical hits. You may whiff more often, but you also burst more often. I'd say this is balanced, and definitely not sub-optimal. Focus on light armor to take advantage of high Dex, and play the swashbuckler.

 

[Umbran]

Folks, a little warning....

Historically, EN World as a community thrives on diversity. As a result, we expect people to show respect for each other, for their favored games, and playstyles.

We understand that folks have a lot invested in their hobbies, and can become quite passionate. Passion is good, but rudeness isn't. Repeated assertion that what others do is Badwrongfun, not RPGing, or not D&D, are not respectful, and generally wind up insulting. And the insult we won't tolerate - it is basis for a vacation from the site.

So, please, treat each other well - as if the people matter more than your opinions on a game. 'Cause as far as the moderating staff is concerned, they do.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

sorry umbran... I'll behave...
[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] I would say those are fine characters as long as everyone at the game is using the same level of play.

Infact in the end of 3.5 (And one of the reason I don't like pathfinder) my group had a huge list of house rules that kept things mostly in the range we like.

[sblock=example] We didn't have wizards any more, but let the super specilists in like warmage and beguiler and dread necromancer. We then let in the warlock and sorcerer with the sorcere has to have a theme and can't just pick willy nilly... but there theme let you sometimes with DM permission take from different lists... warblades and swordsages mostly replaced fighters monk and such... No druids, clerics couldn't get every spell they had prary books like archivists. [/sblock]

In 4e we found that the game played it SO safe we actially broke a lot of rules and gave out big bonus not worrying.... like my artificer with the right feats and demigod ED making +7 items...

 

[Derren]

What's your goal here Derren

What are the goals of the people who demand that only combat characters with a mathematically balanced power level should be allowed to be played?

Believe it or not, in my ideal version of D&D everyone can still play what he wants as long as he is conscious about what the possibilities of D&D are (= include all the non combat options and characters who are simply not good at it, too).
In their ideal version of D&D it seems only a small subset of characters are allowed, namely those who fall within the acceptable combat power spectrum.

How diverse is a game where the first question about a character is "is he good enough (but not too good) in combat"?

D&D might have started as a tabletop wargame were this was indeed a important question, but it became more over time and broadened the horizon beyond just combat. Going back to making combat power a requirement threatens imo all the evolution in D&D and personally I see the big exodus during 4E as a sign that there is a significant group of people who do not want that.
So what version of D&D will in your opinion attract more players?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What are the goals of the people who demand that only combat characters with a mathematically balanced power level should be allowed to be played?

I want to champion my idea of an ideal game for people making the next edition and or retroclone to see...

Believe it or not, in my ideal version of D&D everyone can still play what he wants as long as he is conciounes about what the possibilities of D&D are (= include non combat and characters who are simply not good at it, too).

I have no problem if you sit down and say "I want to suck at X" my problem is when they sit down and say "I want to rock at X" but then make choices that make them suck because it isn't clear...

In their ideal version of D&D it seems only a small subset of characters are allowed, namely those who fall within the acceptable combat power spectrum.

Nope... only characters that you mean to be at the level of competence that they choose...

How diverse is a game where the first question about a character is "is he good enough (but not too good) in combat"?

I want my games to start with "What do you want to play?" and then go form there...

 

[Halivar]

Going back to making combat power a requirement threatens imo all the evolution in D&D and personally I see the big exodus during 4E as a sign that there is a significant group of people who do not want that.
So what version of D&D will in your opinion attract more players?

I think that's a bit of an over-reduction. There was also significant bad-will for WotC and goodwill for Paizo after the Dragon/Dungeon license debacle, compounded by even more bad-will with the GSL. GM's (IMHO, the driving force behind D&D) are incredibly sympathetic to 3PP producers who make the adventures they run, especially Paizo who makes some of the best. I would go so far as to say that this immense amount of bad-will (self-inflicted by WotC, without a doubt) colored the way some people (emphasis for non-generalization) saw 4E and its mechanics. How many, I don't know and I don't care to speculate, but there is one factor and there are many more. I would not single out "balance" as the catalyst for exodus.

 

[Derren]

I want my games to start with "What do you want to play?" and then go form there...

And yet you assume a that someone who wants to play a swashbuckler would automatically be dissatisfied because he is too weak. Maybe the one who makes a high charisma rogue wants to play a fantasy Casanova, "getting the girl" and making daring escapes instead of fighting his way through? Why should he prevented to play something like that?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And yet you assume a that someone who wants to play a swashbuckler would automatically be dissatisfied because he is too weak. Maybe the one who makes a high charisma rogue wants to play a fantasy Casanova, "getting the girl" and making daring escapes instead of fighting his way through? Why should he prevented to play something like that?

wait go back to were I ever stoped someone from playing anything...

 

[Halivar]

And yet you assume a that someone who wants to play a swashbuckler would automatically be dissatisfied because he is too weak. Maybe the one who makes a high charisma rogue wants to play a fantasy Casanova, "getting the girl" and making daring escapes instead of fighting his way through? Why should he prevented to play something like that?

I would very much like him to play that. I'm just adding that I want him to be able to play that AND have a meaningful contribution to all the pillars of a D&D game, one of which being combat, because D&D is about cooperative play, and there will be situations where the party is fighting. If he has smooth-talk his way out of any and all solo encounters, then his character concept is fulfilled, no?

 

[Derren]

wait go back to were I ever stoped someone from playing anything...

Requiring a minimum combat profiency automatically excludes all characters who do not qualify.
Also, making combat powress a requirement elevates combat over the other "pillars" (A term I do not agree with but use for convenience sake) which is in my eyes not a good thing for the future of D&D.