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

[GMforPowergamers]

Defining a rogue's combat efficacy solely in terms of +xd6 is not a choice I made, or would have made.

Try this:

Sly flourish: make a dex attack against target hit for 1w+dex mod and add your cha to AC
Slip away: make a dex attack against target if you hit deal dex mod damage and disengage
Vital strike: take disadvantage then make a dex attack against a living target hit deal 1w+dex mod + 1d6 per 2 levels special at level 10 increase to d8s
Sneak attack: when you attack a target from hiding or a helpless defender make a dex attack vs target hit deal 2w+dexmod + 1d6 per level increase to 3w and d8s at 10th level
Positioning strike: make a cha attack against non mindless target hit you can force them to move up to half there speed in the direction you choose.
Back stab- when flanking or behind a target make a dex attack against the target hit deal 2w+dex mod increase to 3w at 5th 4w at 10th and 5w at 15th level



Add some mobility and you can put the whole use scrolls and it is a good start

 

[Umbran]

What I would like to kow is what the people who demand combat balance consider effective. How many dice must you throw so that you have fun during combat?

For this discussion, the question of effectiveness is a relative thing, not an absolute number of dice.

It really is pretty simple - would the results of the encounter be notably different if you didn't take part? If not, then you're not effective. As in, "you have no meaningful effect on the result".

Any character can have a bad day. Having a single encounter where you don't have meaningful input isn't a big deal. But when it becomes a regular thing, the player gets bored, and that's a problem.

 

[Ahnehnois]

For this discussion, the question of effectiveness is a relative thing, not an absolute number of dice.

It really is pretty simple - would the results of the encounter be notably different if you didn't take part? If not, then you're not effective. As in, "you have no meaningful effect on the result".

Any character can have a bad day. Having a single encounter where you don't have meaningful input isn't a big deal. But when it becomes a regular thing, the player gets bored, and that's a problem.

By that logic though, a rogue could be quite useful against an undead or construct. Making the perception skill checks to see some of the nastier undead coming is quite important. A high Dex rogue can quite effectively "kite" an opponent by running them around and drawing their attacks. There's flanking bonuses and aiding the attacks or AC of other PCs. There's using magic wands to heal party members (or attack). None of those things is likely as effective as getting a sneak attack every round, but they can definitely change the result of an encounter.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The very concept of game balance has become warped over the years. At one time the term actually meant what it said- balance for the game. The game is not a single encounter, nor is it a single session of play. Balancing things at this small a scale results in a "sameness" between all character types. The type of balance that is needed for a board game intended to resolve itself in a single session not an rpg campaign. The shorter timeframe that balance must be acheived in, the more euro-boardgamey the game will feel.

The design of the game overall can also heavily influence balance type. Originally, the score keeping in D&D was done via treasure won. It could be fought for, found by luck, stolen, or tricked/negotiated away from its owner. The exact round by round combat capability of each character was not of huge importance. Everyone could contribute to obtaining treasure in different ways.

XP in later versions was obtained primarily via winning encounters. In this case, combat capability was much more important. If a large percentage of encounters involve combat, and those encounters also provide most of the XP, then the game has forced balance into a smaller scale- the play session or the encounter.

When playing under such encounter based rules, it is not crazy, nor overly powergaming to want an on-par combat capability regardless of class chosen. If the bulk of play time involves hitting things and the primary means of advancement is likewise, common sense dictates rough equality in this area. I can't fault a player for having two brain cells to rub together.

In reality, both larger scale and small scale balance have their place depending on what type of play experience one is going for. I wouldn't want to play a 1E character in a game using the 3E XP system.

 

[Umbran]

By that logic though, a rogue could be quite useful against an undead or construct.

Sometimes, yes. Others, not so much.

Making the perception skill checks to see some of the nastier undead coming is quite important.

Entirely situational - requires the GM to set up the situation such that it is important. Also, depending on edition, it may be irrelevant, as the perception checks are often Wisdom-based, and there are other characters with high wisdom that also make the check, making the rouge's contribution irrelevant.

A high Dex rogue can quite effectively "kite" an opponent by running them around and drawing their attacks.

Against unintelligent undead, yes. But just as the party is expected to concentrate fire on important foes, so will intelligent undead - if the rogue isn't doing damage while kiting, intelligent undead will quickly ignore them, in favor of trying to whomp on the characters who can actually hurt them.

There's flanking bonuses and aiding the attacks or AC of other PCs.

If those people are missing hits by a couple of points, yes. But if they aren't, it isn't relevant.

There's using magic wands to heal party members (or attack).

See previous note about magic shops - this assumes the rogue has access to the equipment in question.

Mind you, I personally don't find the rouge's limitations with undead and constructs to be a major issue. As noted, for an occasional encounter, not being effective is not a big deal. It is when you find yourself *generally* ineffective that there's a problem.

 

[Ahnehnois]

As noted, for an occasional encounter, not being effective is not a big deal. It is when you find yourself *generally* ineffective that there's a problem.

When does that actually occur?

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

+/- 3 is when it starts to become substantial, while +/- 5 is the max for standard 3E.

And yes, you can resort to spells - potions being drinkable spells - because spellcasting is the correct choice in D&D. However, keep in mind that a Potion of Greater Magic Weapon +5 is 3,000 gp, so it can add up at higher levels unless you want to whiff constantly.

That doesn't even get into the fact that you're stuck using a vanilla weapon instead of your acid bursting flametongue or whatever, which also reduces your overall effectiveness.

--

Being generally ineffective occurs when you have a themed adventure or campaign. Ravenloft is a terrible place to be a rogue, in particular.

 

[Farscape]

For this discussion, the question of effectiveness is a relative thing, not an absolute number of dice.

It really is pretty simple - would the results of the encounter be notably different if you didn't take part? If not, then you're not effective. As in, "you have no meaningful effect on the result".

Any character can have a bad day. Having a single encounter where you don't have meaningful input isn't a big deal. But when it becomes a regular thing, the player gets bored, and that's a problem.

What equals usefulness is subjective and therefore prone to over expectations.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

+/- 3 is when it starts to become substantial, while +/- 5 is the max for standard 3E.

And yes, you can resort to spells - potions being drinkable spells - because spellcasting is the correct choice in D&D. However, keep in mind that a Potion of Greater Magic Weapon +5 is 3,000 gp, so it can add up at higher levels unless you want to whiff constantly.

--

Being generally ineffective occurs when you have a themed adventure or campaign. Ravenloft is a terrible place to be a rogue, in particular.

My rouge has a +1 keen frost burst rapier and a master work bow
The fighter has a +2 flaming acid great axe and a +1 longbow with 20str and 14 dex
The paliden has a +2 holy great sword and a non masterwork cross bow with 18 str and cha but 12 dex

When fighting at range that team sucks...

 

[Incenjucar]

What equals usefulness is subjective and therefore prone to over expectations.

Certainly, but you can still have some higher and lower bounds.

If you eliminate the danger of your portion (divided by party size) of challenges (monsters, traps, whatever) by whatever means, it's fair to say that you were useful. If you spend an entire encounter failing to eliminate the the danger of challenges at all (whiffing every round and drawing no fire, etc), it's fair to say that you were not useful.