Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9163595" data-attributes="member: 42582">To me, it seems obvious that there is a big part of the D&amp;D play community for whom the principal function of the PC sheet is to serve as a loosely-rated series of descriptors, and for whom the principal element in resolution is not the maths but the GM. This was true back in the days of AD&amp;D 2nd ed (and even later AD&amp;D play), and 5e D&amp;D seems to foster a very similar approach albeit with more focus on the realisation of the player's vision of their PC.For these play groups, the mathematical/mechanical balance between classes doesn't really matter (provided it's not so bonkers that the descriptors become unworkable) as all the real action in adjudicating outcomes is via the GM.Part of the point of my post upthread about the &quot;why can't everyone do that&quot; element of design is as follows:To an extent, it is true to say that the sorts of players I've described just above won't be adversely affected by adjustments to the fighter that improve mechanical balance - for instance, strengthening a particular feat (say, the Grappler feat) probably won't adversely affect them. But this is true only to an extent. Give the fighter too many more instances of Action Surge, for instance, and for this group the ability ceases to serve its purpose in their play - of connoting the fighter making a mighty, Captain America-esque surge of strength to help their friends and bop more bad guys - and instead starts to make the fighter just look like the Flash, racing around at what is (for them) an implausible rate of activity relative to the rest of the participants in the combat.My feeling is that the WotC design team is quite conscious of this sort of issue - I think it's what they are getting at when they talk about the &quot;feel&quot; or the &quot;story&quot; of a particular class. And it's why mechanical balance is not the only goal of their design. Saying that it's bad design to keep in mind this important part of their customer base strikes me as unhelpful. It seems better just to focus on the actual issue - ie the lack of mechanical balance.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9163595, member: 42582"] To me, it seems obvious that there is a big part of the D&D play community for whom the principal function of the PC sheet is to serve as a loosely-rated series of descriptors, and for whom the principal element in resolution is not [I]the maths[/I] but [I]the GM[/I]. This was true back in the days of AD&D 2nd ed (and even later AD&D play), and 5e D&D seems to foster a very similar approach albeit with more focus on the realisation of the player's vision of their PC. For these play groups, the mathematical/mechanical balance between classes doesn't really matter (provided it's not so bonkers that the descriptors become unworkable) as all the real action in adjudicating outcomes is via the GM. Part of the point of my post upthread about the "why can't everyone do that" element of design is as follows: To an extent, it is true to say that the sorts of players I've described just above won't be adversely affected by adjustments to the fighter that improve mechanical balance - for instance, strengthening a particular feat (say, the Grappler feat) probably won't adversely affect them. But this is true only to an extent. Give the fighter too many more instances of Action Surge, for instance, and for this group the ability ceases to serve its purpose in their play - of connoting the fighter making a mighty, Captain America-esque surge of strength to help their friends and bop more bad guys - and instead starts to make the fighter just look like the Flash, racing around at what is (for them) an implausible rate of activity relative to the rest of the participants in the combat. My feeling is that the WotC design team is quite conscious of this sort of issue - I think it's what they are getting at when they talk about the "feel" or the "story" of a particular class. And it's why mechanical balance is not the only goal of their design. Saying that it's [I]bad[/I] design to keep in mind this important part of their customer base strikes me as unhelpful. It seems better just to focus on the actual issue - ie the lack of mechanical balance. [/QUOTE]

Verification