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

[GMforPowergamers]

And yet, that doesn't change that the skillfull rogue is a adequate combatant who also brings a lot more to the table than the druids pet, which is as much a hindrance than a boon depending on the location.?

But not more then the Druid... Who on top of that animal compaion has spells and skills

 

[ImperatorK]

I might have forgotten the rule which says (and trumps rule 0) that you have to spend a majority of game time in combat. Can you quote that one for me?

Sure. I'll even do you better and quote multiple: "Dungeon Master's Guide", "Player's Handbook", "Monster Manual", etc.

And thats the only things that counts according to you, right?

Never said that. It's just a big part of the game.

 

[Derren]

Under these conditions, within the fiction my character will be regarded - rightly - as a poor fencer, who is better than 5 year old children but nevertheless not very good with a sword.

So in your eyes a swashbuckler is someone who wins every fight he is in. If he doesn't, he is a poor fencer? And of course every PC must automatically win?

Sure. I'll even do you better and quote multiple: "Dungeon Master's Guide", "Player's Handbook", "Monster Manual", etc.

Please page and line number, if not the exact quote.
Thanks.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually thats what you and Mistwell are saying the whole time, that every character must be good in combat, because thats the only important part of D&D, which automatically excludes characters like Frodo.

You have a bad habit of putting words in people's mouths. I don't know if it's because you are not appreciating what others are saying, or if you do grok it but find it easier to simply alter it to make it easier to attack, but I wish you would stop.

When I say it's a must that every character be good in combat, and that's the only important part of D&D, then you can respond to such a claim. Until that time, I wish you would respond to what I actually say, and take it only at face value without adding inferences to it.

And since this is about the fourth time you've done that to me, I am going to follow this up with a PM to make it doubly clear. Only, because PMs don't need to meet the Eric's Grandmother rule, it might be a tad more direct.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not 100% sure how to parse your sentence, but it seems to me that "a finesse weapon like a rapier" is within the cope of "using".

Read this way, you say that "a swashbuckler is . . . someone using . . . a rapier". What does "using" mean in this sentence? I posit that I don't turn my 5 year old child - who I can assure you is very charming and has a carefree attitue - into a swashbuckler simply by sticking a rapier into her hand. "Using" implies a certain competence, a capacity to use that rapier to genuine effect. And in D&D this is utterly tied to how many dice you roll for damage (plus your to hit bonus, your critical range, your static damage mods etc - if you want a summary expression, you could say it is wrapped up in your DPR).

For instance, if the typical duelist my swashbuckler will be facing has (say) 40 hp and deals 1d6+8 hp on a hit, and my swashbuckler PC has (say) 30 hp and deals 1d6+1 hp on a hit, then I have basically no chance of winning a duel with a typical duelist: assuming equal to hit chances, they will take me down in 3 blows, at which point I will have eliminated around one third of their hit points.

Under these conditions, within the fiction my character will be regarded - rightly - as a poor fencer, who is better than 5 year old children but nevertheless not very good with a sword. Certainly no one, either imaginary people in the fiction or real people at the gaming table, would look upon my character the way that we think of Robin Hood or Zorro.

It is because - at least at many gaming tables, and I think at those who are playing D&D in its default mode - the mechanics express the relative capabilities of characters that a character concept cannot be divorced from its mechanical expression.

This seems less a problem of balance and more an idea of "competing concepts" of what a swashbuckler is.

D&D has had a problem since probably its inception about what traits define a class and whether a class adequately reflects its supposed archetype. Go re-read any D&DN thread about a class and you'll see it in action.

For some, a fencer with his thin blade and leather jerkin is no match for a knight armed with a greatsword and wrapped in steel. For others, the two should be totally comparable numerically and the fiction explains away the perceived differences (the fencer's agility and ability to poke between plates of steel win him equal footing against the knight).

For some, the rogue is not a combat machine and is best served avoiding combat (or striking a dirty blow when presented) while others see him as an agile combatant full of acrobatic maneuvers and stunning redirections.

 

[ImperatorK]

So in your eyes a swashbuckler is someone who wins every fight he is in. If he doesn't, he is a poor fencer? And of course every PC must automatically win?

It would be nice if he would be at least competent at what defines him, no?

Please page and line number, if not the exact quote.
Thanks.

"D&D".

 

[Derren]

It would be nice if he would be at least competent at what defines him, no?

If you want him to be competent then why don't you build him more competent than a charismatic rogue?

"D&D".

Still no explanation why combat must be the biggest part of the game so that it dwarfs everything else.

 

[pemerton]

The context you might not be aware of is in another thread where he recently stated that "establishing shots" or game time spent on establishing setting detail external to the characters is something he would never do in an rpg, and that it's inappropriate for a DM to allow any circumstances that there characters are not aware of affect their actions because it is "interposing a secret backstory".

I have never asserted that playing with secret backstory as a major component of resolution is inappropriate. I have asserted that it is inconsistent with certain playstyles, including those which I personally prefer.

This is completely orthogonal to whether or not a game can be used to play LotR. Far and away the most Tolkien-esque versions of Elves, Dwarve and Orcs in any fantasy RPG are to be found in Luke Crane's Burning Wheel, which is a game which is expressly designed to be played with no secret backstory component to the determination of success of declared actions.

Of course, most of the LotR trilogy is devoted to focusing on things that the ostensible main characters are not aware of and have no direct relationship with, and is about a world and a story that is bigger than any one character's perspective.

It's not true that most of LotR is devoted to things that neither Frodo nor Aragorn are aware of. Some is, but it almost all involves the other hobbits, either Merry with the Rohirrim, Pippin with the Palantir and then in Gondor, and Sam in Cirith Ungol. Which is only to say that they are also significant characters in the story.

As for LotR as world-building, Tolkien was obviously a clever philologist and literary theorist but his book shows no attempt at all to create serious history or sociology. The "histories" he constructs to support his invented languages have nothing in common with actual human history or social transformation. They (delibarely) echo received literary tropes for mythical and fictional histories. They have the same relationship to real history and sociology as the claim in some Arthurian stories that Arthur conquered Rome (ie none).

I thus regard Tolkien as a key model for the role of "the milieu" in fantasy RPGing: it is a source of theme and colour, stipulated in accordance with desired genre tropes, but not itself a source of genre-independent constraint. For instance, to work out the dynamics of the relationship between Wormtongue, Theoden, Eomer and Saruman one does not and cannot turn to works on political sociology or the theory of power. One turns to literary examples of treacherous advisers, weak and failed kings, sons in pursuit of redemption, and Faustian wizards corrupted by the pursuit of power. And I personally prefer fantasy RPGs where the same holds true: that is, where the players can safely reason in accordance with genre tropes rather than imposed (but generally radically underdeveloped) notions of "realism".

My point is that modern fantasy fiction does not exhibit the kind of "protagonism" that pemerton likes to talk about.

Well, it wouldn't. "Protagonism" is something enjoyed by the players of an RPG. But fantasy fiction exhibits protagonists (ie principal characters). Who would deny that Frodo, Aragorn and to a lesser extent the other hobbits are the protagonists of LotR? That Conan is the protagonists of REH's stories? That Ged and Tenar are the protagonists of the Earthsea stories?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So in your eyes a swashbuckler is someone who wins every fight he is in. If he doesn't, he is a poor fencer? .

Nope... But if 2 1st level characters neither is a full Bab class square off and one is concept dashing swordman and the other is hippiy in the woods, one gets 1 class fetuses that wins the fight and it is the hippy then the game doesn't fit the story well

 

[Derren]

Nope... But if 2 1st level characters neither is a full Bab class square off and one is concept dashing swordman and the other is hippiy in the woods, one gets 1 class fetuses that wins the fight and it is the hippy then the game doesn't fit the story well

If you want a dashing swordman, why do you take a 0 BAB class (which is described as not a good melee fighter and having to rely on dirty tricks) with average physical stats? Even a brand new player would realize that he would not be all that powerful in combat.
You purposefully build your "swashbuckler" weak to prove your point, but someone who wants a good combatant would build a good combatant instead of a ladies man with not much weapon training.