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

[Dannyalcatraz]

"It doesn't need defining, tho" is what you'll get in response.

Which, if it happens, would be indicative of not caring whether one is understood or not, and thus, a demonstration of not being worth engaging.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

In 4e you can't make a character without combat proficiency.

Well I guess you could technically tank your ability scores, but that just means you couldn't use the combat abilities you do have effectively.

In 3e, if you really wanted to, you could. Though I've never known anyone to actually do so, even if they wanted to focus more on exploration powers. And a lot of those powers due tend to have a sub use in combat.

I've never ever heard anyone say "No, I don't want to roll initiative ever. In combat I'm just going to stand behind a tree and watch."

So its a very theoretical argument to have.

People who don't want to participate in combat but want to play D&D at all are in such an extreme minority I'm not sure they get a vote.

Like people who hate elves and ban them from all their games and want them removed from the PHB.

I know several people who have done this. They were only invested in casting specific spells out of combat. They would buff other characters before combat and would take no actions during combat. I've had wizards where I didn't even bother writing down my to hit. He always memorized all out of combat utility spells.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

XunValdorl_of_Kilsek, you seem to be using some terms in an unusual fashion, at least in the context of ENWorld's forums. It would really foster understanding if you defined some of these terms, like exactly how you are defining "damage".

When you attack someone, you are doing some type of damage whether it's an actual physical blow or from a spell. If I hit you with a spell that puts you to sleep then I am attacking you and the damage is you are unconscious. Now you can describe damage another way but I look at the what happens after a successful attack as damage. Some posters here want to feign ignorance just to try and won their argument. I stated that in 4th edition you couldn't create a non combative character and I have yet to be proven wrong. Someone tried to do it and wasn't successful.

At the end of the day, we have people just not wanting to admit they are wrong.

 

[Incenjucar]

Damage is hit point reduction. Using a different definition when you're talking about a game with rules about damage is not helpful.

If you are talking about whether or not you can have a wizard who is incapable of being useful in any way in a combat challenge outside of slap-fighting trolls, no, you can't do that in 4E, but you can do that in previous editions by taking an incredibly narrow selection of low-level spells, like that Bubble Bath spell. As wizard players should know, non-damage magic can still have absolutely tremendous combat application - heck even the Bubble Bath spell could be used as a threat against a monster that's averse to being clean and you could drive it off a cliff or something. Teleport and fly are a vital components to some of the most devastating nova tactics in any edition.

The abilities available to characters in 4E do assume that combat is part of the game, and that all characters should be functional in a combat situation, though directly dealing damage is NOT the only way that characters do this. It would also be trivial to just add powers to the classes which had no combat application so that players could take those instead, just like a prior-edition wizard can choose between Magic Missile and Bubble Bath.

--

Of course, the instant a wand of magic missile shows up, that wizard becomes a combat character.

 

[Warbringer]

At the end of the day, we have people just not wanting to admit they are wrong.

Indeed we do...

 

[The Human Target]

I know several people who have done this. They were only invested in casting specific spells out of combat. They would buff other characters before combat and would take no actions during combat. I've had wizards where I didn't even bother writing down my to hit. He always memorized all out of combat utility spells.

I'm sure that's true, but your group is a very small percentage of gamers.

And I would say buffing the party for combat counts as participating in combat.

 

[Incenjucar]

Buffing before combat directly affects the amount of dead in the game, so unless the buffing ONLY gets used for lifting heavy rocks in safe meadows, it's pretty blatantly a combat ability, yeah.

And honestly, every wizard can use scrolls, wands, and other items that cast deadly deadly spells, so they're incapable of being incapable of combat - a 4E pyromancer isn't required to use their fire magic for non-campire purposes, so they're on the same level when you factor in a WILLINGNESS to use available combat abilities in-combat.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

We played a game in 3e we called the azrathal show... It had thee most broken
Batman style wizard he was an abjur and he baned necromancy conjugation

Until prysmatic spell levels (7 I think) had no spell that caused damage or really helped anything but def or divination... He carried no weapon... He could not be remade in 4e

A swordmage was perfect for the idea someone had based on him though...

 

[Marshall]

I'll give you Armor, PFE, and Haste/Slow, since defensive magic and buffs/debuffs still primarily see combat use.

But Levitate, Fly and Dispel?

Levitate can be used in combat to lift you above the fray, but its primary purpose is to be a free climb check to higher elevations. Ditto fly, the ultimate avoid hazard spells.

Yup, movement buffers. Not as useful in 3e as 4e but still useful in combat.

Dispel serves to be far more useful dispelling magic traps and removing illusions and wards than debuffing.

Dispel is barely useful at all, but at least as useful as a combat debuff as an out of combat defense.

In a pinch, ANYTHING can be used a weapon, but that doesn't make them weapons. I can beat someone up with a chair but that doesn't make a chair's primary use a weapon.

I mean, its like arguing light is a combat spell since it lets you see your target...

Light is a combat spell since it could be used to blind a target...

 

[Remathilis]

Yup, movement buffers. Not as useful in 3e as 4e but still useful in combat.

By that definition, EVERY spell could be a combat spell, with the exception of read magic.

Fun fact: when you insist everything looks like a nail, you naturally wonder why people buy screwdrivers and wrenches instead of hammers.

Light is a combat spell since it could be used to blind a target...

Not in 3.0 on. You can only cast it on objects, not people.