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

[Derren]

You really should stop that. The strawmans and putting words in peoples mouths. If you keep on with it I will be forced to conclude that discussion with you is a waste of time and put you on ignore.

So you first specifically deny that only your game is about combat and that it is a "D&D thing"

No, the game. D&D. Do you even know the rules of D&D? Because you're talking like you don't.

And then you say that people can run games however they want, including a game not about combat.

Your own words and all the faulty logic in them

No. You said fight, not duel. I responded to you, not Pemerton. And I meant it in general, which is exactly what I said, nothing more, nothing less.

I was discussing the made up duel with pemerton when you injected yourself into it.

I don't insist on it, it's just better for the flavor.

And yet when I ask why a charismatic rogue you answer

Because that's what a swashbuckler is?

You could for example make a charismatic fighter if you want a better combatant, but no. Its a rogue.

 

[Derren]

Your thoughts, [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION]?

1. I don't see why the characters should compete with each other
2. You seem again to only assume it is about combat
3. The game is most fun when someone can play what he wants, including non/weak combat characters.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

ok lets start again...

pretend you never played D&D before. You are about to make your first character. You sit down with the 3.5 PHB and almost every class feature the rogue gets is combat. The book says your not the best at combat, but you see this class called fighter, and these other similar classes paladin, Ranger, and barbarian... so you make the assumption those are the main combat classes (full base attack) you then look that there are some classes that get large lists of spells Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, and Druid. There is one class that doesn't fit this... the Bard seems half way between the two.

If you don't know the system, you don't see everything, only the basics... and you will fall into traps...

"Gee I want to be a tough guy, does taking the toughness feat do that?"
"Gee Rogue is another way of saying swashbuckler or cheerful adventurer..."
"If this game tonight is going to be a big fight then FIghter must be the best for that"
"Strider was a Ranger, and he was the best swordman ever... how do I get the combat style for sword an shield?"


WHen in reality Toughness is a weak feat, and if you are looking to be tought it wont help much
Rogues are stuck inbetween being rogue's and thieves... way back when (14 years ago now) they changed the name but never fully changed the class...
The best at combat is a buffed druid shareing the buffs with his animal companion
Strider had more in common with a 4e warlord then a 2e,3e, or 4e ranger... (Although I think I was told 1e ranger was close...)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashbuckler
[sblock]Swashbuckler (a.k.a. swasher) is a term that emerged in the 16th century[1] and has been used as a term for pirates and swordsmen ever since. A possible explanation for this term is that it derives from a fighting style using a side-sword with a buckler in the off-hand, which was applied with much "swashing and making a noise on the buckler".[2] Later the name "swashbuckler" (like gunslinger) became common for an archetype and the accordant special film genre.[3]

The swashbuckler as an archetype[edit]

The word swashbuckler generally describes a protagonist who is heroic and idealistic to the bone and who rescues damsels in distress. His opponent is typically characterised as the dastardly villain. There is a long list of swashbucklers who combine outstanding courage, swordfighting skill, resourcefulness, chivalry and a distinctive sense of honor and justice, as for example The Three Musketeers, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Robin Hood[4] and Zorro.[5]

Classic swashbucklers[edit]

The genre has, apart from swordplay, always been characterized by influences that can be traced back to the chivalry tales of Medieval Europe, such as the legends of Robin Hood and the King Arthur. It soon created its own drafts based on classic examples like The Three Musketeers (1921), Scaramouche (1923) and The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934). Some films did also use motifs of pirate stories.[7] Often these films were adaptations of classic historic novels published by well-known authors such as Alexandre Dumas, Rafael Sabatini, Baroness Emma Orczy, Sir Walter Scott, Johnston McCulley, and Edmond Rostand. Swashbucklers are one of the most flamboyant Hollywood film genres,[8] unlike cinema verite or modern realistic filmmaking. The genre attracted large audiences who relished the blend of escapist adventure, historic romance, and daring stunts in cinemas before it became a fixture on TV screens.

As a first variation of the classic swashbuckler there have also been female swashbucklers.[9] Maureen O'Hara in Against All Flags and Jean Peters in Anne of the Indies were very early action film heroines.

Modern swashbucklers[edit]

Eventually the typical swashbuckler motifs were used up because they had so often been shown on TV screens. Late films such as The Princess Bride, Pirates of the Caribbean and The Mask of Zorro had to modify the classic archetype to attract a big audience. The modifications of the swashbuckler archetype went so far that he even became the villain in 1995's Rob Roy film. Tim Roth plays an accomplished fencer who is overly ambitious and elegant. The final fight between Roth's character Archibald Cunningham and the protagonist demonstrates the differences between a so-called swashbuckler and a man who applies a previous combat style while swinging a heavier blade
[/sblock]

so now what? Does everyone on Wikipedia have the idea wrong about swashbucklers being good in a fight?

 

[Derren]

so now what? Does everyone on Wikipedia have the idea wrong about swashbucklers being good in a fight?

So because in literature characters have plot immunity the rogue (I don't get how you get the rogue-swashbuckler connection) must be a very good fighter? And I might have to rewatch them, but I can't remember Jack Sparrow winning many swordfights.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

1. I don't see why the characters should compete with each other

in the short term they shouldn't but over a few games if you feel someone else is playing a much more useful character at multi points it makes the game less fun for some.

2. You seem again to only assume it is about combat

OK, then balance would not matter, just play combat... the problem is that combat/social/exploration are all ruled by who is best at them... and fighter and rogue get so little in any of them.

3. The game is most fun when someone can play what he wants, including non/weak combat characters.

let me take a snip here...

The game is most fun when someone can play what he wants...

so lets start there if you want to play in a balanced party where everyone can contribute to combat/social/exploration encounters how do you do that??

 

[Mistwell]

1. I don't see why the characters should compete with each other
2. You seem again to only assume it is about combat
3. The game is most fun when someone can play what he wants, including non/weak combat characters.

It was a quote from Gary Gygax, writing for the Strategic Review magazine back in the 70s. I changed a couple things, like magic-user to wizard, and player-character to PC, but nothing meaningful.

 

[Derren]

so lets start there if you want to play in a balanced party where everyone can contribute to combat/social/exploration encounters how do you do that??

Ask the rest of the group: "Can we play in a balanced party where everyone can contribute to combat/social/exploration encounters".
And if they agree, make characters together to create such a party while the DM prepares adventures for them.

It was a quote from Gary Gygax, writing for the Strategic Review magazine back in the 70s. I changed a couple things, like magic-user to wizard, and player-character to PC, but nothing meaningful.

And?

 

[The Human Target]

How is this unending argument about Doctor Who, Frodo, and Jack Sparrow still going?

 

[Bluenose]

Someone good in a fight who's witty, agile, outspoken, resourceful, ladies man. Think of Zorro, Robin Hood or The Three Musketeers.

I'd make Robin Hood as a Ranger, mechanically. Even if that does contradict one of my favourite medieval poems.

So because in literature characters have plot immunity the rogue (I don't get how you get the rogue-swashbuckler connection) must be a very good fighter? And I might have to rewatch them, but I can't remember Jack Sparrow winning many swordfights.

I'd assume the Rogue-Swashbuckler connection comes from the Swashbuckler being a Thief kit in 2e. Gave them an NWP, and let them use a duelling weapon with Fighter THAC0, among other things.

 

[Mistwell]

And?

Do you think all Gary Gygax cared about was combat? If not...then your constant assumption that people only care about combat, when they say those kinds of things, is obviously flawed.