That happens to everyone regardless of class or system.
I've seen people miss four or five times in a row. Crap happens.
D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)
- Thread starter XunValdorl_of_Kilsek
- Start date
That happens to everyone regardless of class or system.
I've seen people miss four or five times in a row. Crap happens.
But that's okay because everyone isn't equipped to handle every situation. Every little bit helps.
3catcircus
Adventurer
And? They've decided to invest in melee effectiveness rather than ranged combat. As the DM, I wouldn't go out of my way to accommodate them - if they manage to get close enough to be effective, so be it. If they are stuck in ranged combat and getting their butts' kicked, then maybe they either need to change tactics, invest in better ranged weapons, or - run away.
Remathilis
Legend
I've seen a few examples, but they tend to be corner case.
1.) Nature-based characters (druid, ranger) who lose a lot of effectiveness in either urban or dungeon-based games.
2.) Rogues and Illusionists (and somewhat bards) lose out when surrounded by constructs, undead, and other mindless/unliving foes.
These exceptions are fine for a bit, but I wouldn't want to play full campaigns where this was the norm. (Not without some means of offsetting it, such as Penetrating Strike/Requiem, or Urban variants).
Ahnehnois
First Post
To me, druids and rangers translate pretty well into urban environments. Goodberry is a more useful spell in a city than Charm Person or Magic Missile, and much less likely to be illegal. They tend to have pretty useful skills and decent mental ability scores. Sure, their effectiveness is somewhat compromised, but realistically, every D&D character class is compromised in an urban setting (except perhaps the rogue).
Would I want to play a full campaign of a rogue fighting things immune to crits? No, but that strikes me as a player/DM issue and not a class balance issue. I also wouldn't want to play a wizard in a game where arcane magic is outlawed and mages are hunted for sport, or a fighter in a game with no combat, and so on and so on. It's up to the DM to determine what the challenges are, how transparent to be about them, and how to treat the players in general.
And, as you say, these tend to be corner cases.
Halivar
First Post
I mentioned in another thread the enchanter I rolled up for a long-term campaign. After the first adventure (the "framing" adventure) the campaign turned into 100% constructs and undead.
Possibly the most frustrating game I have ever played.
I believe I already listed some cases. High level 1e fighters, for example, can run into the problem standing next to wizards and clerics of the same level. This was supposed to be "fixed" by having the classes level up at different rates, but folks found that to be less than adequate, which is how the idea of balancing in action came about, historically.
I fall back to what I said before about subjective issues - while it is subjective, when we are talking about designing of a game for sale, the market's going to have some things that will go over well, and others that won't.
"It is subjective," only means that there isn't one tried and true, simple answer. It does *not* mean that designers should just ignore the issue entirely.
Jester David
Hero
I somewhat agree that balance is overblown as a concern, exaggerated into THE issue facing game systems on forums.
But balance problems still occur.
It's a problem when one character is so much more powerful than another. A little imbalance is not an issue as that could be caused (or fixed) by one-sided optimization.
It happens in my Pathfinder game where two characters are just an order of magnitude better than the other characters. Sometimes it's not an issue, but sometimes fights are not as challenging as they should be or players feel like they can't contribute.
And it sucks when another character is better than you at something you worked hard to be good at.
Because D&D is a team game imbalance is a little more forgivable. A class can be better than another class but because the player's work together it's less obvious than in PvP games. But the classes still need to be balanced against monsters.
And there's so much swing from the dice and design of encounters, perfect balance is impossible. There will always be a MVP in an Encounter. Player skill is also huge for balance, and a strong player will always be able to optimize and shatter balance.
But balance problems still occur.
It's a problem when one character is so much more powerful than another. A little imbalance is not an issue as that could be caused (or fixed) by one-sided optimization.
It happens in my Pathfinder game where two characters are just an order of magnitude better than the other characters. Sometimes it's not an issue, but sometimes fights are not as challenging as they should be or players feel like they can't contribute.
And it sucks when another character is better than you at something you worked hard to be good at.
Because D&D is a team game imbalance is a little more forgivable. A class can be better than another class but because the player's work together it's less obvious than in PvP games. But the classes still need to be balanced against monsters.
And there's so much swing from the dice and design of encounters, perfect balance is impossible. There will always be a MVP in an Encounter. Player skill is also huge for balance, and a strong player will always be able to optimize and shatter balance.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I was answering the "How can you think X will be less effective then Y" I would hope all of those would not be in one party, but yea it could happen.
back up weapons are almost never a great option. The warblade (you know from the badwrongfun book) can even swap his feats like weapon focus and specialization around every day so you can use other weapons.
I see no reason why sneak attack should not work on any noticeable number of monsters (although a few are ok)
Imagine if skeletons and incorporeal were the only undead with immune to crits and sneak attacks... and only a few constructs... flesh golems no immunity, stone golems yes,
GMforPowergamers
Legend
yea as a DM I hate when there is a 12 or better point swing in things.
if one character has a 30AC and another has an 18 then a monster that can hit the first on anything but a 20 means almost can't miss the second. attacks are even worse... if one person swings a +22 and the other a +10 then it is almost impossible the other end...
