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

[Mistwell]

A well designed game is purely subjective. There is no science to it like there is with say a car's engine. Balance does not automatically equal fun, 4th edition is a testament to that.

Lots of people had fun with 4e. The fact that 4e did not meet WOTC's financial expectations, does not in any way equate with 4e not being fun.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I have typed this reply and undid it many times. Once or twice I was unable to get my point across, at least once it was rude enough to get me kicked out of this thread.

I am sick of being told I don't count.

It is not a Forum issue to me.

If you told me in 1994 that there was such a thing as a liner fighter quadratic wizard I would have laughed at you. I never had seen that problem. in 2003 on the other hand almost 10 years later I was pulling my hair out over that problem I wouldn't have believed before.

I shouldn't ever feel that a character I drew up by the rules and just making choices based on flavor is 'too powerful' or 'too weak'

I also don't want to play "Surprise you suck" any more.



I played my last non caster back when the 3.5 adventure hand book came out It had a Ninja class. I wanted to play a Ninja... so I did. The DM HATED my sudden strike (Read as sneak attack) so he started throwing undead and constructs. So The wizard of the party made me magic items that let me sneak attack those things. SO he started using scent and tremor sense... I found a feat that let me 'hide' from them. My basic idea was to sit out most of the fight, hiden, then use a blow gun to sneak attack.

I spent hours finding ways to be my character... and the DM hated that I could... and I still was less effective then a basic druid...

 

[Incenjucar]

Not necessarily. The 3e fighter really doesn't get anything unique (barring a few exclusive feats of limited value), and that's fine. Not only fine, but great. If all the other classes were done the same way the game would work a lot better.

A class doesn't have to have anything unique to that class; it can be seen as simply a package of abilities. A skill-based system would allow you to select any feats and skills you wanted, while the fighter class forces you to gain hit points, base attack, fort saves, and combat-related feats all at the same time. Flexibility is lost, while there may be a gain in ease of play for someone who doesn't want to have to select all those things individually. There's no reason why sneak attack (and every other class ability) couldn't be made into a feat or skill, and classes simply created as packages of thematically related feats and skills. In fact, a skeleton of that idea was presented in Uneathed Arcana, with all the core classes condensed to three generic customizable versions.

That would be the "Next" evolution of D&D's class system to my way of thinking.

While an archetype plus la carte system can be great, it isn't really something I expect can get passed the traditionalists. I also don't think the 3E fighter was all that great a class in context - better than the 2E fighter, sure, but that isn't saying much. It seemed to be something people dipped into and then ran as far from as possible most of the time.

 

[Ahnehnois]

While an archetype plus la carte system can be great, it isn't really something I expect can get passed the traditionalists. I also don't think the 3E fighter was all that great a class in context - better than the 2E fighter, sure, but that isn't saying much. It seemed to be something people dipped into and then ran as far from as possible most of the time.

True, which is why the other classes should have been built the same way as well. And, of course, the fighter should not be toiling away with low saves and dead levels. But the fundamental approach is sound.

If we're talking about people old school enough that they weren't on board with 2e kits, they'll be tough to please with any modern game. Then again, the three generic classes that I cited could be seen as a callback to the original three classes. I don't see that this approach precludes traditionalists.

 

[billd91]

I played my last non caster back when the 3.5 adventure hand book came out It had a Ninja class. I wanted to play a Ninja... so I did. The DM HATED my sudden strike (Read as sneak attack) so he started throwing undead and constructs. So The wizard of the party made me magic items that let me sneak attack those things. SO he started using scent and tremor sense... I found a feat that let me 'hide' from them. My basic idea was to sit out most of the fight, hiden, then use a blow gun to sneak attack.

I spent hours finding ways to be my character... and the DM hated that I could... and I still was less effective then a basic druid...

Sounds less like you had a dysfunctional RPG and more likely an @$$hole DM. If the DM hadn't made it such a chore to be the character you wanted to play, would you have noticed being less effective than a basic druid? Would it have mattered?

 

[Umbran]

I spent hours finding ways to be my character... and the DM hated that I could... and I still was less effective then a basic druid...

Wile I'm one arguing that designers should at least think some about balance... if the problem is the the DM hated something, then that's not a problem with the game, but with the DM.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

The only balance that should be aimed for, IMO, is that every character gets to shine an "equal" amount of time during the session / adventure, if possible in his or hers area of expertise. This doesn't just mean balance in abilities, but balance in encounters and events during said session / adventure.

AR

 

[Umbran]

As this point only comes up in "exclusively sneak attack immune creature 10ft room dungeon crawl with no non combat interaction at all" I have no problem with it.

Except that it doesn't only come up there. It comes up with lots of folks who played fighter-types in 1e and 2e, who at higher levels basically sat on their thumbs while the wizards and clerics dealt with things...

It also came up in 3e for many fighter-players who had a CoD in the party. It's pretty sad when you get outdone in your own shtick...

Or, lots of people who played 3e and found bards to be underpowered... or monks...

So, as far as I'm concerned, you're pretty factually incorrect saying this was a one-situation point.

I think I can still maintain that spending a little thought on class balance is a good idea. And that is all I'm arguing, just in case you're trying to shut down something I'm not saying.

 

[Marshall]

You are so hung up on the idea that balance= DPR that there is no real value in discussing it.

That's the myth.

What he said.

XVD has constructed a strawman that anyone who wants balance wants every character to do the same damage, the same way every round and then tries to shoot that down.

The first sad thing is that the Mod crew are the ones actually arguing with him.
The second sad thing is that the first line of the OP is XVD calling everyone a troll and he hasnt been called out for it.

 

[Farscape]

Carrying a backup magic weapon is not cheap, especially at higher levels, and you've had your character horribly weakened when you resort to it. A fighter with a bow isn't as bad as a wizard who resorts to hurling darts, but they're not impressing anyone.

Rogues can be terrible wizards instead of rogues, yes.

I would like to jump in and ask why does the back up have to be magical?

Also, lower plus weapons are not that expensive.