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

[GMforPowergamers]

At the moment, 3rd edition and more so Pathfinder, give players the best option to set their ges at either a high combat level, a low one, or anywhere in between.

no games without classes and levels do that way better...
in my Owod game we are playing my character has a 2 dex, 2 str and 2 stamina (1-5 rating) and 0 brawl 0 melee and 0 firarms when I say I have no combat I mean it is almost impossible for me to hit anyone with anything... another player is playing a gunslinger with dex 5 and firearms 4 (specilazed in pistol)
[sblock=if you don't know WoD]that means if we were both shooting at a non moving target I would roll 2d10 and if either came up an 7 or higher it would be a success, and if I roll a 10 I can add another d10 to the roll. He would roll 9d10 and any 7's would be a success and any 9's or 10's would not only be a success but her would add another d10. If you want to hit another combatant they get to dodge you and that dodge success subtracts from yours...[/sblock]

Large combat focus was tried with 4th edition and it apparently didn't work. The proof is in the pudding because we all see how successful Pathfinder is and that's based entirely on the 3rd edition model. If the majority of people were so supposedly mad about balance then it wouldn't be the top RPG at the moment.

yes, because some people claim pathfinder is SOOO much more successful, but no proof there at all... in fact WotC is making money well not publishing any new books, well Pathfinder puts out more and more to keep surviving... and needs a kickstarter (for small underfunded projects) just to expland into video games well D&D makes enough to just do it themselves...

People want less anal balance and more freedom.

there is a grain of truth in this edtion waring... people want BOTH balance AND freedom AND distction of character... 4e may have swung too far one way, but there is a big difference between "Lets keep the balance and make it more fun" and "Screw balance no one cares."

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

3.5 also had an implicit assumption of miniatures, as was discussed exhaustively on these very boards at the time. And yet, top RPG and all that jazz...

Actually, that was the 3rd edition minatures game. If the standard game is assumed to use minatures, then why create anactual minatures game with rules and all?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Actually, that was the 3rd edition minatures game. If the standard game is assumed to use minatures, then why create anactual minatures game with rules and all?

my 3.5 player handbook had mini's used for the combat chapter (not that we cared we did minds eye for most of it) and so did my 4e book (we alternated minds eye and board)

I am still yet to hear one thing from you that can't be tracked in every version

1) Mini's and a board (for this case mini's include any physical representive of your character)
2) Dry erase or pensile for marking where everyone is
3) Minds eye

 

[Neonchameleon]

You have already been told why and please don't play dumb just to try and win an argument. You know, as well as everyone else, that 4th edition is based on precise placement of miniatures on a map that will change round by round. There also such things as slides, push, and pull that can then start a domino effect because of various interrupt powers that is very much based in exact movements and exact location.

4th edition was designed for grid play. It was not designed for minds eye, nor was it designed for use purely with paper and a pencil.

3rd edition was designed for grid play and the rulebooks are very clear about this. It was not designed for mind's eye and it was not designed to be played purely with paper and pencil. And bits of it (like the AoE rules and the AoO rules) are problematic if you try. The editions are no different in this respect. So why the special pleading? You can play either theatre of the mind but you struggle with bits if you do.

At the moment, 3rd edition and more so Pathfinder, give players the best option to set their ges at either a high combat level, a low one, or anywhere in between. Large combat focus was tried with 4th edition and it apparently didn't work. The proof is in the pudding because we all see how successful Pathfinder is and that's based entirely on the 3rd edition model. If the majority of people were so supposedly mad about balance then it wouldn't be the top RPG at the moment.

People want less anal balance and more freedom.

At the moment unless it is spellcasting uber alles, 4e has more out of combat flexibility than 3e and the biggest mistake people make is too much combat. But no version of D&D is much good out of combat compared to e.g. Fate or GURPS

 

[Jacob Marley]

Actually, that was the 3rd edition minatures game. If the standard game is assumed to use minatures, then why create anactual minatures game with rules and all?

The 3.0 Dungeon Master's Guide labeled miniatures as an optional consideration (page 13, considerations for running the game - miniatures). The 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide specifically stated that miniatures were assumed (page 4, how to use this book - playing on the battle grid).

The D&D game assumes the use of miniature figures, and the rules are written from that perspective.

 

[Halivar]

But no version of D&D is much good out of combat compared to e.g. Fate or GURPS

D&D has as much mechanical support for out-of-combat roleplay as it needs. I don't need or want those bits to be as crunchy as combat. I prefer more storytelling time, which is why D&D is my all time favorite fantasy RPG. I get my combat fiddlyness with my handwavey roleplay. A balanced, nutritional breakfast.

 

[Bedrockgames]

D&D has as much mechanical support for out-of-combat roleplay as it needs. I don't need or want those bits to be as crunchy as combat. I prefer more storytelling time, which is why D&D is my all time favorite fantasy RPG. I get my combat fiddlyness with my handwavey roleplay. A balanced, nutritional breakfast.

This is all preference, but I find I don't need much in the way of mechanics for things like roleplay. In fact, I find even skills like diplomacy sometimes get in the way for me. Still the skill system in 3E is pretty extensive, and the NWP system from 2E (especially if you use an expanded list drawing on the various complete books) is pretty extensive as well. You can do a lot with those.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is all preference, but I find I don't need much in the way of mechanics for things like roleplay. In fact, I find even skills like diplomacy sometimes get in the way for me. Still the skill system in 3E is pretty extensive, and the NWP system from 2E (especially if you use an expanded list drawing on the various complete books) is pretty extensive as well. You can do a lot with those.

I often wonder if they made a 2.5 that had everyone have % skills like the rogue (not the same ones) if that would have been a work around...

Like fighters get climb walls, high jump, intimidation ect.. and the wizard gets like a lore skill or something...

 

[Halivar]

This is all preference, but I find I don't need much in the way of mechanics for things like roleplay. In fact, I find even skills like diplomacy sometimes get in the way for me. Still the skill system in 3E is pretty extensive, and the NWP system from 2E (especially if you use an expanded list drawing on the various complete books) is pretty extensive as well. You can do a lot with those.

I agree with all this, and furthermore think a more narrative-focused, non-enumerative skill mechanic like 13th Age's Backgrounds would be the best facilitator for my style of play.

 

[dd.stevenson]

This is all preference, but I find I don't need much in the way of mechanics for things like roleplay. In fact, I find even skills like diplomacy sometimes get in the way for me. Still the skill system in 3E is pretty extensive, and the NWP system from 2E (especially if you use an expanded list drawing on the various complete books) is pretty extensive as well. You can do a lot with those.

Yeah. I hand wave proficiencies in my 2E game, because I think it's too much work for very little payoff. If the player says their character has the relevant skill (and if I agree), then they're proficient.

I often wish D&D took a more qualitative (vs. quantitative) approach to describing non-combat abilities. In this, I feel D&D has a lot to learn from indie games. For my playstyle, every edition since 1E has been a step backwards in terms of non-combat play.