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

[Marshall]

First, you don't get to become a moving target here. The position you took was, "I'm talking about the myth that a lot of people somehow want all classes to be balanced when it comes to combat and damage."

The reason its a myth is the underlined part makes it a strawman that XvD loves to tilt at. I've never seen nor heard of anyone making the argument that all classes need to be balanced when it comes to damage and its kinda iffy to say all classes need to be balanced when it comes to combat.

Its perfectly acceptable for some classes to do more damage and some to be "weaker" overall in the combat pillar. The difference is that if you are a "low damage" build you should be compensated by being better at defending, buffing or debuffing. The same way that if you're a weak combat build you can be better at exploring/interacting. There just shouldn't be an option to be completely unskilled in any of the three pillars.

 

[Brock Landers]

Some people I game with, do.



Some people I game with, do care about those things.



Some people I game with, do care about those things.

That's unfortunate.

 

[Mistwell]

That's unfortunate.

It's not. I game with awesome people, and we have a great time.

People can have fun in ways that are different than how you have fun.

 

[enrious]

That's unfortunate.

Wait, why is it unfortunate?

If the reverse were true, would that also be unfortunate and if so, why?

 

[S'mon]

I know 4e had a lot of things that made those fights long, but I often wonder if no one had fruit ninja/ Angry birds/ candy crush going and no one could be having a converstion without really talking on the phone, and no one could be internet surfing... would it play faster? Then again maybe I'm just a luddite

I know a guy who does that while playing Labyrinth Lord(!) - drives me nuts! Really saps all the energy from the table. I'm more forgiving of the people who do it while playing 4e, as long as they're discrete and keep their devices under the table.

 

[S'mon]

this whole conversation has taken so many odd turns, my orginal one off antidote has been pulled apart and insulted and my players insulted, even my DM skill called 'dumb'...

I think in terms of GM style and rules compliance, you and your group are at one extreme, Majoru Oakheart and his group are at the other. I would not enjoy playing with either group. I guess a fair number of other posters feel likewise. Doesn't mean you're not having fun - that's for you to judge.

 

[S'mon]

I'm the one that called it a myth, not GM. Also, what I call a myth is the whole balance concern that is supposedly floating out there amongst the majority. I never said that not a single person is concerned, I am talking about it as a wide phenomena and I stick by exactly what I said.

The majority of gamers that I have come in contact with could give a rats ass about tight balance in a game. Working towards balance is not the problem, making balance the end all to everything is where the problem exists.

I think most people want their PCs to be able to contribute in the areas that the game spends most time on. So if the game spends half of its table time on combat encounters, most players will want their PCs to be effective at combat. I tend to agree that most players IME don't need their PC to be exactly as effective as every other PC at every moment of the game. Conversely if a PC is only good at One Thing, and even then not very good at it - eg high level 3e Fighters & combat, IME - then yes that will often be a concern. Likewise if a PC class can dominate every aspect of play at the expense of other PC types. 4e designers maybe overrated the importance of class balance, IMO 3e designers
either underrated it or else didn't understand how poorly balanced the classes were.

Personally I don't find 4e's very tight balance harmful. Neither is the loose balance of pre-2e D&D (I hear that late 2e had some problems). 4e could stand to be a bit less balanced, but I can understand
why the designers, in creating a very combat-focused game, would want every PC to be comparably combat effective.

 

[Bluenose]

Because every single movement, placement, and action is taken into account. To play 4th edition in it's entirety, you must have miniatures. The game was designed for miniatures. Sure you can play a watered down version of the game, but we aren't talking about that.

As opposed to all the other editions, where movement rates, ranges, area of effect, detailed maps, attacks of opportunity; these were entirely optional since you could just ask the GM what was possible. 4e of course made it physically impossible to ask the GM what was possible, and compelled people to act as if every measurement meant something.

 

[Manbearcat]

I agree absolutely - which is why I put the "if/then" qualifiers around my last paragraph. But someone asked "why would rewarding failure be a good thing?" so I answered with an obvious reason why it might be a good thing (if you have particular aims for the game).

On the other hand, I would point out that using other techniques also assumes (or defaults to) certain types of play. What any or all D&D players want "forced upon them" is something of a moot point; playing D&D (as opposed to another RP system) is a choice, not mandatory.

I don't think @Manbearcat 's proposed system would do anything other than have "your in-game choices, character abilities and a roll of the die determine failure or success" - the only change is that there is some incentive for the player to select non-optimal abilities to use some of the time.

Well, they do, namely, an agenda of "always use your best numbers whenever possible". Which in turn creates pressures on the system that we can see in both 3E and 4e. @Manbearcat was pointing to a rules approach which can relieve some of those pressures.

Precisely. As I noted upthread, in my initial perusal of 4e, the fact that they had constructed a framework to mechanically resolve and adjudicate/evolve/be determinative of fictional positioning, the first thing I thought of was DitV. DitV has two forms of experience which advance characters; From (post-conflict) Fallout and upon Reflection (between towns). Fallout is derived by failure within conflicts and has a specific effect on play (one is mentioned above). Reflection can mean success or failure in the prior town and that has a specific effect on play. Initially, they went with neither model (XP only on success) and I was puzzled by this. Ultimately, in revising Skill Challenge's XP mechanism, they went with the Reflection Model.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I think most people want their PCs to be able to contribute in the areas that the game spends most time on. So if the game spends half of its table time on combat encounters, most players will want their PCs to be effective at combat. I tend to agree that most players IME don't need their PC to be exactly as effective as every other PC at every moment of the game. Conversely if a PC is only good at One Thing, and even then not very good at it - eg high level 3e Fighters & combat, IME - then yes that will often be a concern. Likewise if a PC class can dominate every aspect of play at the expense of other PC types. 4e designers maybe overrated the importance of class balance, IMO 3e designers
either underrated it or else didn't understand how poorly balanced the classes were.

Personally I don't find 4e's very tight balance harmful. Neither is the loose balance of pre-2e D&D (I hear that late 2e had some problems). 4e could stand to be a bit less balanced, but I can understand
why the designers, in creating a very combat-focused game, would want every PC to be comparably combat effective.

Contribution is purely subjective. The problem here is apparently what the other person sees as contributing. I may be entirely fine with my contributions to the game, but someone else may not be happy with my contributions and that's not right. You worry about your character and I will worry about mine. I think too many people are getting caught up in DPR and how quickly they can get through combat and on to the next one. Also, every fighter I have ever gamed with or played in 3rd edition did just fine in combat. Tell me one fighter that did absolutely nothing during combat because they weren't able. If they didn't bring a bow to a flying game then that's their problem, but I have never seen a fighter that had trouble hitting any AC from all the Monster Manuals. I think the problem here is people expected the fighter to always be king of DPR, just like somehow every creature fails their saves or the Wizard just happens to have the right spell at every turn.

When you actually play these games enough, you will see that the majority of these cases are corner cases and I don't want a future game designed around would could possibly happen or may sometimes happen. It's also amazing how the DM just seems to disappear from the table when all this broken stuff is supposedly going on.