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

[Incenjucar]

Thus proving that the balance that matters is created by the people at the table, not a generic set of rules.

Which works great if people have the time and skill required for that.

The worse the balance designed into the game, the more knowledge and time is required to play, the greater the chance of failure, the smaller the potential audience.

Moreover, balance doesn't harm anything, so it's a win-win.

 

[Remathilis]

Thus proving that the balance that matters is created by the people at the table, not a generic set of rules.

To a point, yes.

That said, the rules should create some base idea of balance. There is no point if there is a class (or small group of classes) that outshine all others in nearly all situations. Likewise, a class that cannot carry its weight in any situation is worthless. There should be some attempt to avoid divine-metamagic-persistent-spell clerics and 3.0 half-elf ranger/bards, regardless of player/group composition.

 

[mlund]

To a point, yes.

That said, the rules should create some base idea of balance. There is no point if there is a class (or small group of classes) that outshine all others in nearly all situations. Likewise, a class that cannot carry its weight in any situation is worthless. There should be some attempt to avoid divine-metamagic-persistent-spell clerics and 3.0 half-elf ranger/bards, regardless of player/group composition.

In the end, I think that's one of the things that sold me so strongly on 13th Age. The classes are not symmetrical, but they are balanced enough and nobody gets left caddying for anyone else just because of the class they picked, regardless of the game pillar. I think they surgically removed just the right cuts of beef from various cows to keep things in line balance-wise while still giving a sliding scale of complexity between classes and within the classes themselves. (And, ironically, their take on spell slots / levels seems truer to Jack Vance's Dying Earth than any edition of D&D.)

- Marty Lund

 

[Bluenose]

And that is perfectly possible as long as you want to play a swashbuckling rogue, like a new player would, and not a 3D6+7 19-20x2 "thing" like you want.

Do you accept that there's a difference between "Swashbuckling rogue" and "Comic relief that thinks it's a swashbuckling rogue"? Because if the game is designed such that someone wanting to make the first has to design that character carefully to avoid being the second, I'd suggest that's an indication of a game that's failed at it's first hurdle.

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?

Casanova, it might be worth noting, was also a famous duellist.

 

[Marshall]

I AM NOT CARING ABOUT CHAROP PLEASE STOP THAT... CHAR OP CAN MAKE ANY CLASS GOOD, BUT MORE THEN HALF THE CLASSES ARE TRAPS WITHOUT IT AND THE FEW LEFT CAN BE AS GOOD WITH NO OPTIMIZATION....

(spelling errors fixed 'cause they bug me)

You're not going to win this argument GM... You're trying to talk them out the hypocrisy of it being AOK to use charop for Fighters(and ONLY Fighters) but badwrongfun to do it with any other class.

....and yes, Rogues are, and always have been, a combat class.

 

[Ahnehnois]

...and yes, Rogues are, and always have been, a combat class.

Quick reality check. The rogue used to be called a thief, and was about...thieving. Sneaking, pickpicketing, etc. The backstab was a secondary thing. The same is true of at least the 3e rogue, which has a broader skill base but to which sneak attack is still a secondary feature. That's why the term "combat rogue" is so popular, because you can build a rogue for combat (but don't have to).

The only real "combat classes" are the fighter and his martial brethren.

Do you accept that there's a difference between "Swashbuckling rogue" and "Comic relief that thinks it's a swashbuckling rogue"?

Do you accept that there's a difference between "swashbuckling rogue" and "elite warrior"?

 

[Marshall]

Requiring a minimum combat proficiency automatically excludes all characters who do not qualify.

Yes, it does. So give those kinds of concepts something else to do in combat.
4e does this numerous ways. From chicken-defending to non-attack attack powers to controllers to lazy leaders to...the point is that EVERY class and EVERY character should come with some method to contribute in EVERY pillar.

Also, making combat prowess 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.

No it doesnt. All it does it ensure that players have a reason to stay engaged in all aspects of the game.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It started there...day 1 first game in the 70's it was a war game.

stop and read that again... make sure your clear where point A is.

So many people assert this, but it seems that they do so without any real understanding of what OD&D was actually like. I can tell you that there were lots of war games that were produced and played around that time, but the one thing which made OD&D different and innovative was that combat was a tiny bit compared to the exploration and role playing aspects, which were the genuine innovation.

OD&D was created by wargamers, out of a wargame for sure. That doesn't mean that it was primarily a wargame, and I see much more of a wargame influence in the rules design and actual play from 3e onwards.

Regards

 

[Marshall]

Quick reality check. The rogue used to be called a thief, and was about...thieving. Sneaking, pickpocketing, etc. The backstab was a secondary thing. The same is true of at least the 3e rogue, which has a broader skill base but to which sneak attack is still a secondary feature. That's why the term "combat rogue" is so popular, because you can build a rogue for combat (but don't have to).

Yes, the thief used to be completely incompetent both in and out of combat, but the fact that he had both medium THAC0/BAB and Backstab means he was designed as a combat class. Not a toe-to-toe, stand up combatant, but a combatant none the less.

The only real "combat classes" are the fighter and his martial brethren.

Thats a remarkably narrow view of "combat". Is the Mace and Shield Cleric a combat class? Monk?

Do you accept that there's a difference between "swashbuckling rogue" and "elite warrior"?

No? I'd put the Dread Pirate Westly/Robin Hood up against Conan/Lancelot any day of the week.

 

[Marshall]

So many people assert this, but it seems that they do so without any real understanding of what OD&D was actually like. I can tell you that there were lots of war games that were produced and played around that time, but the one thing which made OD&D different and innovative was that combat was a tiny bit compared to the exploration and role playing aspects, which were the genuine innovation.

Yes and No. The difference was that D&D HAD exploration and role playing aspects and the concept of individual units(PCs) and "campaigns". The combat portion of the game was still almost 100% wargame rules(hit points represent losing one man out of a platoon rolled into one figure). THAT is abstraction.