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

[Derren]

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.

I don't think a new player to D&D which was the premise would know that.

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.

70s was Chainmail, or? That was only about combat.
And wasn't it Arneson and not Gygax who at first expanded upon this framework?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

you know that is what we did... you need too go back to when I explained by the time 4e came out we had removed half the classes of the game then changed the ones we let it. When 4e came out it seemed it was our answer... except it was too bland after a while.

I hope 5e is as fun as 2e and as balanced as 4e. I hope you and I can play the same game, but I don't understand you at all at this point...

 

[Derren]

but I don't understand you at all at this point...

Sometimes people and groups want to play one of the classes which you did remove or the ones you didn't even consider (NPC classes) and don't want to be prevented by the system because only balanced combat classes are allowed or having to deal with some very strange rules intended to give a class a combat ability it actually shouldn't have.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

70s was Chainmail, or? That was only about combat.
And wasn't it Arneson and not Gygax who at first expanded upon this framework?

wait didn't I get told I was wrong when I said in the 70's when d&D started it was a wargame and every edtion sense added more and more non combat and rp... even 4e tried with skill challenges (Half credit for trying)... Plane sailing asked how I could know about things before I was born, it was a whole sub argument... just like my thought that Dr WHo is a combatants...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sometimes people and groups want to play one of the classes which you did remove or the ones you didn't even consider (NPC classes) and don't want to be prevented by the system because only balanced combat classes are allowed.

OK, then lets go back to what this game needs is a default Balanced base set of classes, and optinal (and labled) ones that let you be less effective if you want to at anything... but to make sure no one stumbles into such a class trying to make a basic archtype...

 

[Derren]

OK, then lets go back to what this game needs is a default Balanced base set of classes, and optinal (and labled) ones that let you be less effective if you want to at anything... but to make sure no one stumbles into such a class trying to make a basic archtype...

Please don't as otherwise it starts all over again as you imply that balanced combat abilities and the combat aspect of the game is what matters most.

If you want labels so badly, give every class a short summary in what it is good and what not, but do not single out classes with lower combat ability and make them optional.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Please don't as otherwise it starts all over again as you imply that balanced combat abilities and the combat aspect of the game is what matters most.

um... were do you see combat there?

I want FULL balance.

(I want more classes but just for the sake of brevity)

I want FIghters, Magic Users, and Thieves that can all be played with equal fun and usefuleness in all three pilliars.

I don't want the game balanced around combat... I want the game balanced OVER ALL

 

[Derren]

I don't want the game balanced around combat... I want the game balanced OVER ALL

Thats impossible unless you make all classes equally good at everything. The balance depends mainly on the type of campaign the DM is running.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Thats impossible unless you make all classes equally good at everything. The balance depends mainly on the type of campaign the DM is running.

Please walk me down this slippery slope...


lets focus on non combat 1st (only because combat is the only thing you seem to think anyone cares about)

what if all rogues had a list of 4-10 things they could do like **Fast talk** make a check to make someone do something as long as it isn't against there base nature or **hide in plain sight**

then the fighter got 4-10 things they could do like **Gibs' slap** remove a condtion but deal 1d4 damage to an ally or **Intimadating smile**

then the wizard and cleric still had there spells

then you could even say something like Defualt fighters start with 2 combat abilities and 0 social ones... and rogues start with 1 and 1... but if you are willing to take the time you can mix and match...

then go with 4e 1/2 level to attack but give fighters a combat ability to get +1 and weapon spec as an apotion...

then we can all have things to do and all play the characters we want...


in my homebrew everyone starts 1st level with Con score HP... then gets a HD every other level d12 for fighters d10 for other combat classes, d8 for rogue cleric and monk types and d6 for wizards... at odd levels you only get +1/+2/+3 hp

 

[Ahnehnois]

then we can all have things to do and all play the characters we want...

Unless you want to do something outside of those 4-10 things.

I'm not a fan of that kind of thinking. I much prefer a dimensional approach over a categorical one. Which is to say, everyone can do stuff, but some people are incrementally better at some stuff than other people are.