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

[dd.stevenson]

Ars Magica is usually mentioned in reference to asymmetrically-balanced games. My understanding is that the whole system is that the Wizard is the important one, but players take turns playing the wizard (someone please correct me if I got that wrong.)

That's not the "standard" way to play ars magica; or at least, it wasn't when I played the system like fifteen years ago. Out of the box, each player is supposed to be in charge of a mage and a companion (a really badass muggle). There were also bucket loads of grogs (mook muggles) that were community property so to speak.

One of the problems we had with the game is that there wasn't a lot of Storyguide guidance about who runs the characters, beyond some handwavey advice about maybe switching up control of characters based on which characters were present in the scene (so that one player wasn't running every character in the scene). There was also IIRC some advice about maybe running alternate modes, e.g., like where the SG is in charge of all the muggles, or where the SG is in charge of all the mages, etc, etc.

Which was a shame, since the game has/had some really great things going for it--its setting was on par with shadowrun in terms of popular appeal, IMO.

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

Because a -5 to hit is pretty damning in D&D and a number of creatures require magical weapons to hit.

At lower levels, not such a big deal, but by the time you're using +3 weapons it's a substantial drop is usefulness.

--

Thanks dd, I haven't played it myself, just know it by reputation.

 

[1of3]

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.

In fact, they are pretty much alike. With a car engine you might look for speed, cost, maintenance, exhaust fuels and a number of other things. And depending how you value each of these parts you will come to different conclusions what makes a good engine.

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

Frankly, that's not what I paid good money for. I paid assuming the game will work.

Perfect examples of players who are only concerned with the damage they do. If they weren't, they would not "stack dice" but use other ways to help in combat.

There are basically two ways to change the fiction in an RPG session. Either you can make a suggestion and have people agree to it. Or you can refer to some rules that will make the change, if you invoke it.

So finding a solution can either be: "Read your character sheet again." or "Talk other people to make them agree with your idea."

 

[Sage Genesis]

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

To someone who knows what the 8 pieces do but does not have an understanding of the strategy of play, chess is often a frustrating experience.

Possibly the game would be less frustrating for them if they realized there are only 6 kinds of chess pieces...

 

[Farscape]

Because a -5 to hit is pretty damning in D&D and a number of creatures require magical weapons to hit.

At lower levels, not such a big deal, but by the time you're using +3 weapons it's a substantial drop is usefulness.

--

Thanks dd, I haven't played it myself, just know it by reputation.

So basically what your saying is if it's not optimal then it's not worth your time and is therefore considered useless by yiu.

 

[Halivar]

So basically what your saying is if it's not optimal then it's not worth your time and is therefore considered useless by yiu.

"substantial drop in usefulness" != "not optimal"

Let's respond to what people are saying, not what they aren't.

 

[Balesir]

That's not the "standard" way to play ars magica; or at least, it wasn't when I played the system like fifteen years ago. Out of the box, each player is supposed to be in charge of a mage and a companion (a really badass muggle). There were also bucket loads of grogs (mook muggles) that were community property so to speak.

This obviously changed with the specific group. When we played the "accepted" model was a bit like the "stable" system several folks used way back for D&D play; every player had one wizard, one companion and a few grogs in the campaign, but you only played one of them (or the "squad" of grogs) at any one time. Play tended to proceed in "missions" (or "quests" or "situations"...) and you took what seemed the most appropriate of your characters for the specific task at hand. Often the beginning of the "mission" took the form of everyone playing their wizard, discussing and deciding what to do - thus, each player could make the case for their wizard or their companion going along. Since wizards tended to have "downtime" stuff to do that was at least as valuable as "adventuring" it generally worked out well, since not everyone wanted their magus to be out of the lab for several days.

To be honest, I don't remember where we picked up this method of play - whether it was something in the rulebook current at that time (AM rivals D&D for number of "editions", although they are all very similar in actual rules), or whether it was something we picked up from other games and general "buzz".

Which was a shame, since the game has/had some really great things going for it--its setting was on par with shadowrun in terms of popular appeal, IMO.

I agree - as a game specific to the vibe of "incredibly powerful magic that is somewhat at odds with the rest of the world" it works really well and gives a unique and textured "feel". The only other roleplaying game that will support the same sort of play well that I can think of is Chivalry and Sorcery (and its exquisite Medieval Japanese offshoot, Land of the Rising Sun).

 

[Farscape]

"substantial drop in usefulness" != "not optimal"

Let's respond to what people are saying, not what they aren't.

That is what his post read.

Thing is, we don't know how much above AC his to hit is, so a -5 to hit (not sure where that came from) could still be an easy hit.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Because a -5 to hit is pretty damning in D&D and a number of creatures require magical weapons to hit.

At lower levels, not such a big deal, but by the time you're using +3 weapons it's a substantial drop is usefulness.

If we are talking 3.x here, then your math appears to be a little funny. A masterwork weapon is +1 to-hit, a +3 weapon is, well, +3 to-hit. The difference is not -5 to-hit, it's -2. Now, if you meant to talk about damage reduction, then you are correct; -5 to damage on a 1d8 is pretty damning. Of course, an oil of magic weapon costs 50gp and overcomes DR, leaving your initial claim of it being too expensive a bit questionable.

 

[Halivar]

Now, if you meant to talk about damage reduction, then you are correct; -5 to damage on a 1d8 is pretty damning. Of course, an oil of magic weapon costs 50gp and overcomes DR, leaving your initial claim of it being too expensive a bit questionable.

A solution requiring Magic Walmart is not a solution, IMHO. It is the #1 thing I do not miss from 3.5.

That is what his post read.

Just pointing out that there is a fair bit of ground between "useful" and "optimal". A rogue will never be optimal against an iron golem. That's okay. What's not okay is how, short of Magic Walmart, a rogue is useless against an iron golem.