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

[Dausuul]

While I agree with the "not bloodly likely" crew on the Throat of Force trick, I have to point out a correction:

The spell says the Wall must be anchored on all sides.

No, it doesn't. Some of the other "wall of" spells require an anchor point (wall of stone must be supported by existing stone and wall of ice requires an anchor), but wall of force has no such requirement. You can create it floating in mid-air if you want. The only requirements are that it must be a) unbroken and b) vertical.

The only wall spells that you could conceivably anchor to the inside of a monster's throat are wall of ice and wall of thorns. But when trying to block a red dragon's windpipe, neither ice nor wood is a terribly effective obstacle.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

With regards to the Wall of Force.

The caster can form the wall into a flat,
vertical plane whose area is up to one 10-
foot square per level. The wall must be
continuous and unbroken when formed. If
its surface is broken by any object or
creature, the spell fails.

Won't work.

Edit: Also, the minimum size of that Wall of Force is going to be 90 sq feet which is larger than a dragons throat anyway.

 

[Manbearcat]

I've said before (on more than one occasion...and on one in particular I did an in-depth analysis on the DMG and PHB) that I believe either (i) there were "too many cooks in the kitchen" or (ii) a dissonant editorial voice on the initial 4e books. Although I find the DMG1 to be a very solid book in many ways, the quality and focus of DMG2 and NCS in conveying 4e's machinery for play as a functional Story Now/Step on Up vessel is superior in my estimation. It is undoubtedly a High Concept Simulation as it attempts to emulate mythic hero and action movie physics while eschewing gritty process simulation.

Concurrent to the game's initial release, there were dozens of WotC articles focused on breaking out the premise, purpose, and mechanical functionality of Skill Challenges. All of those comported with my initial thoughts when reading about their inclusion; "A Unified Conflict Resolution framework to establish stakes, resolve the conflict, be determinative of the outcome of what is at stake, and guide/propel follow-up conflicts (a la DitV)." The only thing (as I noted above) that gave me pause was "why did they miss the opportunity to grant XP for failure exclusively, rather than granting it for success?" I was puzzled by that. There are many mechanisms at work to functional Story Now play and what I've outlined above regarding conflict resolution is pretty close to SoP. However, in most of those systems, character progress/evolution comes from certain failure conditions. XP exclusively rewarded for failure in Skill Challenges would have had a few advantages:

1) It may have reduced certain groups' apparent propensity for having to deal with "bad-faith" attempts at leveraging Skills that are mismatched with the current fictional positioning. However, it also may have done nothing as if those "bad-faith" players were only interested in "winning the stakes" rather than "winning the XP", obviously no change would have occurred. Respect for fictional positioning by a singular player, the group as a unit, and/or demand for respect of fictional positioning by GMs (fictional positioning or genre credibility test - hat tip @pemerton for language) can only be driven so far by system impetus. If you want to Step On Up and disregard the fictional positioning, you can do it with almost any game engine (obviously some make it mostly or completely dysfunctional/prohibitive).

2) It would have been a legitimate piece of system machinery that drove character evolution of Big Damn Heroes by way of thematic setback, fallout, failure, loss, and adversity. It would have then fed back naturally into the Quest System, setting up the heroic comeback to address/avenge the loss endured, right the wrong, or perform the rescue in the nick of time, etc.

So after that wee bit of analysis, I hope we're all in agreement what a simple change such as that has ramifications to a system and the play it engenders at the table (Later, they revised XP to be earned on both success and failure of Skill Challenges...but this also doesn't have the same potential effect upon play as XP exclusively upon failure). I'm curious as to what @innerdude 's, @Imaro 's, and @Ratskinner 's thoughts would have been, personally, if XP on Skill Challenges would have been rewarded exclusively upon failure. Further, if you guys could try to extrapolate what the majority cross-section of the greater D&D culture may have initially thought if that was the case.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Remind me again why it's a good idea to reward failure?

 

[Mistwell]

Remind me again why it's a good idea to reward failure?

I don't know but I keep replying to your posts anyway!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

With regards to the Wall of Force.

The caster can form the wall into a flat,
vertical plane whose area is up to one 10-
foot square per level. The wall must be
continuous and unbroken when formed. If
its surface is broken by any object or
creature, the spell fails.

Won't work.

Edit: Also, the minimum size of that Wall of Force is going to be 90 sq feet which is larger than a dragons throat anyway.

so if the min wall of force is 90sq feet and you are in a 8ft high 10ft wide dungeon you can't use it because it would only be 80sq ft??
and what does the words "up to" in this mean to you?

Is the wall continues and unbroken? Yes it only is taking up the 'air' space

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

so if the min wall of force is 90sq feet and you are in a 8ft high 10ft wide dungeon you can't use it because it would only be 80sq ft??
and what does the words "up to" in this mean to you?

Is the wall continues and unbroken? Yes it only is taking up the 'air' space

Dragon also has a tongue, teeth, and the yoke that hangs at the back of the throat so these things could be seen as objects and obstruct the wall from being created.

Look, at the end of the day, someone can all they like but it's not going to work unless good old DM fiat steps in,

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Remind me again why it's a good idea to reward failure?

I'm sure I;m opening yet another can of worms here... but I think it is only OK to reward failure once in a blue moon, I do not like the idea of fail forward.

I once played a Drow wizard/thief who had tried to claim a small island, it had 2 dungeons on it. So me and my friends started by cleaning out the undead in the large mansion (Like I think it was over 100 rooms mansion) and in the basement was a door. The door had 3 magic wards and a HUGE lock that looked like it was ment for a oger or small giant. I decided to try to open it. at low level I failed...by a lot and got zapped.
me and the guys set up our own ward (Just in case) and went to the first fo those two ddungeons. When we finished that one (and made friends with the kobolds that lived there) we had leveled up so I tried again... I still failed.
so we went to the shark people dungeon, and two PCs died, one I "resurrected" as a golem the other just made a new PC... we went up some levels and I tried again... and failed.
so umpteen levels later we had long since stoped trying to open the door, and just did other adventures... there was no "fail forward" there was just fail... and years later the DM told us what was behind the door...

 

[Mistwell]

and years later the DM told us what was behind the door...

Come on man, don't leave us hanging. What was behind the door!?

 

[Ratskinner]

I've said before (on more than one occasion...and on one in particular I did an in-depth analysis on the DMG and PHB) that I believe either (i) there were "too many cooks in the kitchen" or (ii) a dissonant editorial voice on the initial 4e books. Although I find the DMG1 to be a very solid book in many ways, the quality and focus of DMG2 and NCS in conveying 4e's machinery for play as a functional Story Now/Step on Up vessel. It is undoubtedly a High Concept Simulation as it attempts to emulate mythic hero and action movie physics while eschewing gritty process simulation.

For better or worse, by the time DMG2 was released, the 4e ship had already sailed for me and my disintegrating group(s), and I don't think I'm nearly alone in that. My son and his friends have picked it up, with a different kid DMing...they play it (from what I've seen) in a very competitive tactical gamist mode. I'm not really sure... can anyone comment on what advice vis-a-vis this type of thing is present in the later Essentials stuff?

Honestly, IMO, I don't find 4e to be a very good High Concept Simulator for the things you mention at the story/plot level. It does get across, quite annoyingly and forcibly IMO, the superhero/action-movie physics at a smaller tactical level. However, I just don't see much in 4e that does anything on a grander scale other than get out of the way a bit better than perhaps all the previous editions.

Concurrent to the game's initial release, there were dozens of WotC articles focused on breaking out the premise, purpose, and mechanical functionality of Skill Challenges. All of those comported with my initial thoughts when reading about their inclusion; "A Unified Conflict Resolution framework to establish stakes, resolve the conflict, be determinative of the outcome of what is at stake, and guide/propel follow-up conflicts (a la DitV)." The only thing (as I noted above) that gave me pause was "why did they miss the opportunity to grant XP for failure exclusively, rather than granting it for success?" I was puzzled by that. There are many mechanisms at work to functional Story Now play and what I've outlined above regarding conflict resolution is pretty close to SoP. However, in most of those systems, character progress/evolution comes from certain failure conditions. XP exclusively rewarded for failure in Skill Challenges would have had a few advantages:

1) It may have reduced certain groups' apparent propensity for having to deal with "bad-faith" attempts at leveraging Skills that are mismatched with the current fictional positioning. However, it also may have done nothing as if those "bad-faith" players were only interested in "winning the stakes" rather than "winning the XP", obviously no change would have occurred. Respect for fictional positioning by a singular player, the group as a unit, and/or demand for respect of fictional positioning by GMs (fictional positioning or genre credibility test - hat tip @pemerton for language) can only be driven so far by system impetus. If you want to Step On Up and disregard the fictional positioning, you can do it with almost any game engine (obviously some make it mostly or completely dysfunctional/prohibitive).

2) It would have been a legitimate piece of system machinery that drove character evolution of Big Damn Heroes by way of thematic setback, fallout, failure, loss, and adversity. It would have then fed back naturally into the Quest System, setting up the heroic comeback to address/avenge the loss endured, right the wrong, or perform the rescue in the nick of time, etc.

So after that wee bit of analysis, I hope we're all in agreement what a simple change such as that has ramifications to a system and the play it engenders at the table (Later, they revised XP to be earned on both success and failure of Skill Challenges...but this also doesn't have the same potential effect upon play as XP exclusively upon failure). I'm curious as to what @innerdude 's, @Imaro 's, and @Ratskinner 's thoughts would have been, personally, if XP on Skill Challenges would have been rewarded exclusively upon failure. Further, if you guys could try to extrapolate what the majority cross-section of the greater D&D culture may have initially thought if that was the case.

I think it would have had one big impact, namely it would have caused groups to abandon the Skill Challenge mechanics even more quickly than they did. I say that because that would be such a reversal of D&D's inheritance from its gamist past where XP are a reward for success. I can't say I would consider that universally applicable. 4e play is pretty thin on the ground around here. I would also suspect that an even higher percentage of the audience would have rejected 4e out of hand for that reason...because that would make the game obviously a pile of <Forge-related pejorative>.

You may recall that the release-time skill challenge mechanics had some math issues that made failure a little more likely. I know that my group jumped on 4e as soon as it came out. I was very keen on the SC idea, but I don't think my players understood it very well...and then we got beaten up by it several times. IIRC, one of my players described our second session as a "carnival of failure" another conveyed his feelings after a botched tracking/interrogation challenge with a captive kobold with "Worst. Party. Ever." I very quickly backed away from Skill Challenges, and went back to stakes-setting and checks ad-hoc as I had for 3e. I know of at least two other DMs who did the same (at least as far as dropping Skill Challenges). If my experiences and this guy's are any judge, whatever came out in DMG2 was too late to help most groups.

As for your two points above...I obviously can't really say.

However, as Imaro and innerdude have commented above. Really, the presentation in the first round of printed books does a good job of hiding any of it non-gamist strengths. The Skill Challenge fiasco is only a minor part of why 4e strikes people that way. I doubt that you suggested tweak would do much to change it.

I'm a bit rushed right now, so I may have more to say on this later upon further consideration.