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

[Warbringer]

This doesn't need defining to be honest.

To be honest, it does, and i'm not being obtuse, honest.

I'm struggling to follow in the conversation is the difference between "damage as effect" and "damage as outcome" and "combat as outcome".

The reason I think that's important in that it points to how the various classes participate in resolution; simplistically, it could be fighters - damage as outcome (damage); clerics damage as effect (buff, debuff, healing), wizards "combat as outcome" (sleep, power word, limited wish), though of course damage as outcome (fireball, lightning bolt, magic missile) ...

That to me defines and changes the nature of the argument...

 

[Remathilis]

When it's through magic I would call it a type of damage.

On this day, I learned Teleport is a type of damage...

 

[ImperatorK]

Because they are wrong and their response warrants lack of experience.

No u.

They know exactly what we are talking about and they know we are right but just don't want to admit it.

You know exactly what we are talking about and you know we are right, but just don't want to admit it.

This doesn't need defining to be honest.

You mean you can't define it, because then your arguments would fall flat?

 

[Warbringer]

Sounds like a personal problem then.

typical ... resolving to ad hominem attacks

 

[Mistwell]

Because they are wrong and their response warrants lack of experience.

You were debating something subjective concerning preferences for playstyles. They were no more wrong or right than you were wrong or right.

It's a glaring thing when a guy who just arrived here, after proclaiming he had problems with mods at another board, tells a guy who has been here since the begging of the board (14 years or so) that his subjective opinion is wrong and he obviously lacks experience playing the game because if he had experience he'd agree with you.

You don't see anything questionable about that approach to this debate? You think it's persuasive, or informative, to do that to your peers? Maybe I am wrong on this. Educate me, if I am.

Damage comes in many forms, not just a physical blow. If my 3rd edition wizard or cleric hits you with Hold Person then that is an attack that does a type of paralysis damage. Some people are trying to double split the hairs and it just shows desperation.

If nobody touches the guy who is paralyzed, and uses the time he is paralyzed to talk to him and try and persuade him to see things your way, then it was not a damaging spell. The damage only would come from something done after they are paralyzed, not the paralysis itself. Paralysis itself is not damage. It's not listed as "paralysis damage" in the rules either. It's not splitting hairs to say that paralysis is not damage. If it doesn't cause death or any hit point loss at all, it's not damage. Damage is measured by hit points and life.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

On this day, I learned Teleport is a type of damage...

View attachment 60129

You didn't learn it from me.

 

[Remathilis]

You didn't learn it from me.

Which is fine, you haven't taught anything worth learning yet.

So let me be clear going forward on what is/isn't an "attack" or "damage"

Fighter swings a sword: Yes.
Mage casts magic missile: Yes.
Cleric cast's hold person: Yes.
Rogue sneaking past a guy: No
Bard bluffs a guy: No.
Bard casts charm person: Yes.
Sorcerer casts teleport: No.

Are we now on the same page?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

XunValdorl_of_Kilsek, you seem to be using some terms in an unusual fashion, at least in the context of ENWorld's forums. It would really foster understanding if you defined some of these terms, like exactly how you are defining "damage".

 

[ImperatorK]

XunValdorl_of_Kilsek, you seem to be using some terms in an unusual fashion, at least in the context of ENWorld's forums. It would really foster understanding if you defined some of these terms, like exactly how you are defining "damage".

"It doesn't need defining, tho" is what you'll get in response.

 

[The Human Target]

In 4e you can't make a character without combat proficiency.

Well I guess you could technically tank your ability scores, but that just means you couldn't use the combat abilities you do have effectively.

In 3e, if you really wanted to, you could. Though I've never known anyone to actually do so, even if they wanted to focus more on exploration powers. And a lot of those powers due tend to have a sub use in combat.

I've never ever heard anyone say "No, I don't want to roll initiative ever. In combat I'm just going to stand behind a tree and watch."

So its a very theoretical argument to have.

People who don't want to participate in combat but want to play D&D at all are in such an extreme minority I'm not sure they get a vote.

Like people who hate elves and ban them from all their games and want them removed from the PHB.