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

[GMforPowergamers]

How do you tell a player no? You say "We're not using that for this campaign."

reread the examples by the time the problem came up we were mid game... no one saw it coming...

It's not that hard. I'd say that about the warlock, a class that's been problematic when I've run game with them

what about the 1st time you see one? Ok, so now that I had a game messed up by X I know next time... but it already ruined a game...

On the players making comparisons, I discourage it.

OK, so I'm in your 4e game, and I'm playing a rouge, and so is Tom over there, I say "You know some how even though we both use daggers and flank, he always does 10-20 more points of damage then me..." well I am chewing on a pizza, what do you do to discourage that thought?

The snapshot may indicate there are inequalities, but there are things that don't appear in the numbers - like how the PCs are viewed by the locals - and the numbers change over time. It's not a game about snapshot comparisons, but about how the story develops over time.

Ok, so if in a 3.5 game my 15th level fighter looks at the Necromancer 3/Master spec 5/lore master 6/ Arch mage 1 and says "Why is it he can totally do like everything and the whole game seems to revolve around finding ways to stop him from instant winning encounters?" what then? it isn't a snap shot it is hours and hours of game play?

or another real life example... Player A is a Ranger X/Rogue X/Barbarian X player B is a Fighter X/Barbarian X/ Prestige class X, and player C is a Barbarian 1/ Cleric 11 who divine meta magics buffs all day and only heals himself... what do you do when the other players say "Why is he got the highest AC and to Hit and Damage every fight when WE TOOK COMBAT CLASSes?" Again not a snap shot but 5 levels of reality...

As far as the issue with the tripping chain-wielder, why are the orcs rushing in like Keystone Cops? Once the first, maybe the second is tripped, why aren't the others advancing more carefully and denying the AoO?

in that case (DM tried) only way to do so is to 5ft step... and that will take 3 rounds to close, and he can still trip on his turn, starting the lock, and getting up provokes another trip...

Why is the ogre, who also has reach, out of range but within the chain-wielder's reach?

becuse the character in question had 20ft of reach with some crazy (and legal by rules we didn't know would be a problem) swing (it might be 3sq reach it's been a while)

And if he's cherry picking the heck out of classes (4 in 5 levels, really?!?), why aren't you saying no or approving his character's build?

Um, because he asked if he could play, had a character that looked ok at a glance, and the rules let you cherry pick... once again DM DID NOT SEE IT COMING

Doing that with a bunch of spell casters may gimp him pretty badly, but anything else sounds like a quest for exploitive combos.

and if you don't know that?

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Just so we are clear, I'm not asking that the game just run wild and rampant.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The rogue, or barbarian, or even fighter don't necessarily have to be balanced with each other. These classes don't have to mechanically work as a single unit. The fighter may do more damage during combat but the rogue saved our ass by negotiating with the king using his silver tongue to get us out of a jam. The problem is trying to measure contribution.

My problem isn't 'does the same damage' my problem is comparing my fighter I made in good faith to your barbarian you made in good faith, and that guys cleric of war he made in good faith. If the cleric and barbarian both have more out of combat options (more skill points and spells) and the barbarian is close enough to be my equal in most fights, but way better in 1 fight a day (rage) and the cleric can use his spells to be better then me at combat, or heal, or be a negatiater, or alter reality... I question why I'm a fighter, I could be just as good as X class AND have more options.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Just so we are clear, I'm not asking that the game just run wild and rampant.

I agree I think "close enough" is a good answer.

I saw wizards dominate 2e, but it was WAY closer to even then 3e ever was. 4e was the best balance we ever had, and the most boaring... can't we meet in the middle.

 

[Morrus]

Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a for...

Try playing a game of poker without knowing what the cards are and which combinations are better, let alone how betting works. Or play a game of (American) football without having a detailed understanding of what is allowed to be done with the ball and when and why. Or play a game of chess without knowing how the pieces move and what their relative value is.

Unless you're defining expertise differently than I am, it seems to me that most games require quite a bit of it. To the point, I don't judge D&D by how it plays in the hands of people who lack expertise.

Surely you can recognize a difference between knowing what the 8 chess pieces do and being a chess expert?

To the point, I don't judge D&D by how it plays in the hands of people who lack expertise.

You might not, but I sure as heck do. And I hope that every game designer does, too.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Surely you can recognize a difference between knowing what the 8 chess pieces do and being a chess expert?



You might not, but I sure as heck do. And I hope that every game designer does, too.

I think we need to think this through. If I sit down with someone who never played poker, chess, and D&D... same person never seen, heard or played any of them.

I show him the cards and say what they are... then I hand him the cheat sheet of the hands (most decks come with one card with them ranked.)

I show him the pieces of the chess board and explain how each moves, we give him a cheat sheet like the one my nephews game came with little pics or pieces and rules... takes up a 2x2 on the board.

I bet he can play and have no problems after an hour...

now lets take the 2 hours we just learned 2 games in and double it to four... how do you in four hours get that person to not only play D&D but also know what to allow or not allow?

 

[SageMinerve]

For me, there are a lot of reasons why 4th edition failed me as a player but balance was not one of them. One of the results came from the almost anal approach to balance. A lot of avenues for me were closed off and I didn't feel free like I do when playing older editions.

The rogue, or barbarian, or even fighter don't necessarily have to be balanced with each other. These classes don't have to mechanically work as a single unit. The fighter may do more damage during combat but the rogue saved our ass by negotiating with the king using his silver tongue to get us out of a jam. The problem is trying to measure contribution.

If your gripe is with the way 4th ed achieved class balance, then I agree with you. It didn't bother me as much as it seemed to bother a lot of people, but achieving balance through different paths would be a desirable design objective, to me at least.

Regarding non-combat contributions balancing combat contributions, I totally disagree with you. Not with the idea itself, but with the feasibility of it.

To take your example, how would you balance the rogue's diplomatic skills with the fighter's combat prowess? You would have to:

a) Make the rogue invest as much character creation/leveling up in diplomacy as the fighter invests in combat abilities;

b) Enforce, as a GM, the fact that the rogue is the one that has the ability to really sway NPCs with his silver tongue.

The problem is with (b). Depending on your style of roleplay, when it comes to dealing with NPCs, there are 2 broad possibilities:

1) Players can act as their characters without any constraints from their character sheets. A lot of people play this way because the PC-NPC interaction flows more naturally without being stopped to check for skills or abilities. That means that players with more conversational abilities will naturally dominate the roleplay aspect of the game, and that there are no consequences to not investing heavily in diplomatic abilities and skills. If combat balance is not enforced by the rules, this turns into a game where PCs will dominate other PCs. Not good IMO.

2) Players can only act as their stats/skills allow them. That means, at a minimum, making a check at the beginning of an encounter to see if your PC can sway an NPC or not, and then roleplaying the result. It can be "granulated" very finely to the point of making a check each time you bring a new argument to the conversation. At that extreme, social encounters turn into a kind of social combat. Some versions of Fate use this. In my experience, not a lot of D&D players are fans of this solution because it doesn't feel very natural to fragment a social encounter this way, but it has the advantage of ensuring that diplomatic characters bring as much to the table as combat.

Solution #1 doesn't really allow for equally important and interesting contributions from everyone. All else being equal, the rogue ends up contributing less than the fighter.

Solution #2 enforces balance by stripping some players the possibility of really bringing it all in broad segments of a game session, which can be quite frustrating.

 

[billd91]

reread the examples by the time the problem came up we were mid game... no one saw it coming…

Then you adjust to the changes or ask the player to tone it down. Just tell them that he's dominating too much combat in a group game and have him tone it down. And if he thinks he's being picked on, tell him that's not the case, but you as DM have a responsibility to the group as a whole and that includes both pushing up the lagging characters and reeling back the ones pushing ahead on the mechanics.

what about the 1st time you see one? Ok, so now that I had a game messed up by X I know next time... but it already ruined a game...

A paladin and warlock comparing their stats and the paladin feeling he's behind is ruining a game? Or is there more you aren't telling us?

OK, so I'm in your 4e game, and I'm playing a rouge, and so is Tom over there, I say "You know some how even though we both use daggers and flank, he always does 10-20 more points of damage then me..." well I am chewing on a pizza, what do you do to discourage that thought?

What does chewing pizza have to do with this?
I'd tell the players comparing themselves that the game isn't player vs player - it's a cooperative game. The stats that matter most aren't PC vs PC, they're PC vs opponents.

Ok, so if in a 3.5 game my 15th level fighter looks at the Necromancer 3/Master spec 5/lore master 6/ Arch mage 1 and says "Why is it he can totally do like everything and the whole game seems to revolve around finding ways to stop him from instant winning encounters?" what then? it isn't a snap shot it is hours and hours of game play?

or another real life example... Player A is a Ranger X/Rogue X/Barbarian X player B is a Fighter X/Barbarian X/ Prestige class X, and player C is a Barbarian 1/ Cleric 11 who divine meta magics buffs all day and only heals himself... what do you do when the other players say "Why is he got the highest AC and to Hit and Damage every fight when WE TOOK COMBAT CLASSes?" Again not a snap shot but 5 levels of reality…

If the non-necromancer characters think he's hogging too much play time, then that's a matter between me and the necromancer player. If he's being too much of a hog, then he's the one I'm telling to tone things down. Plus, I'm going to work in more things for the non-necromancer PCs to do so they get more balanced spotlight time.

in that case (DM tried) only way to do so is to 5ft step... and that will take 3 rounds to close, and he can still trip on his turn, starting the lock, and getting up provokes another trip…

Getting up may provoke an AoO, but it doesn't really provoke another trip since the character isn't up from prone until he completes his move action and you can't trip a tripped character. Bad interpretations of the rules are bad interpretations of the rules.

Um, because he asked if he could play, had a character that looked ok at a glance, and the rules let you cherry pick... once again DM DID NOT SEE IT COMING

The rules as written are subject to DM interpretation for the good of the game and campaign. Excessive multiclassing, even if legal, is usually problematic (over and under power). But even if the DM doesn't see something coming, it's his responsibility to keep the players in harmony if they won't do it for themselves (something that is also their responsibility - it's just that the buck stops with the DM).

 

[n00bdragon]

For me, there are a lot of reasons why 4th edition failed me as a player but balance was not one of them. One of the results came from the almost anal approach to balance. A lot of avenues for me were closed off and I didn't feel free like I do when playing older editions.

The rogue, or barbarian, or even fighter don't necessarily have to be balanced with each other. These classes don't have to mechanically work as a single unit. The fighter may do more damage during combat but the rogue saved our ass by negotiating with the king using his silver tongue to get us out of a jam. The problem is trying to measure contribution.

I'm just curious but looking back through this topic are you even able to use the term "4e" without the word "fail" in the same sentence? One might get the impression you don't like that edition of the game and consider it a failure.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A paladin and warlock comparing their stats and the paladin feeling he's behind is ruining a game? Or is there more you aren't telling us?

Well when one of your three players isnt having fun and the fixes ruin other peoples fun...yea it all starteed

I'd tell the players comparing themselves that the game isn't player vs player - it's a cooperative game. The stats that matter most aren't PC vs PC, they're PC vs opponents.

Ok but he is better at us vs.them then i am, why?

If the non-necromancer characters think he's hogging too much play time, then that's a matter between me and the necromancer player. If he's being too much of a hog, then he's the one I'm telling to tone things down. Plus, I'm going to work in more things for the non-necromancer PCs to do so they get more balanced spotlight time.

so your answer to why the game doesnt nee dbalanc eis someone else will balanve it after the fact?

If you order a cheese pizza and i bring you a peporoni one is that ok becuse you can fix it yourself?

Getting up may provoke an AoO, but it doesn't really provoke another trip since the character isn't up from prone until he completes his move action and you can't trip a tripped character. Bad interpretations

Wow you are funny... you think since you can change the rules when ever you want iy's ok they are bad?

I will avoid another pizza analogy(i must be hungry) and ask why if you feel you van find and change any bad rules and make them work you care what rules i want in the game... you can always change them.