D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[CreamCloud0]

I understand why the version had it's fans but they left it behind because it didn't work very well for what people want out of D&D. They did extensive polling, surveys and gathered feedback there simply wasn't demand to continue that particular experiment.

The AEDU structure made playing different classes oddly similar to me, along with what to me was the supernatural nature of powers, was a big drawback for me and for the vast majority of people I played with. Out of 20+ people that stuck around until the end, 1 person was dissapointed to leave 4E behind.

maybe it made everything similar in 4e where all the classes were based off of it but in 5e where only 4-7 of the 13 classes it might be a bit different(halfcasters would probably be using a more limited number of abilities, or lack an at-will or something), and it's not like people say 'oh man all these spellcasting classes with their spell slots feel the same', you can make them feel unique even if they use the same underlying mechanics.

 

[Oofta]

maybe it made everything similar in 4e where all the classes were based off of it but in 5e where only 4-7 of the 13 classes it might be a bit different(halfcasters would probably be using a more limited number of abilities, or lack an at-will or something), and it's not like people say 'oh man all these spellcasting classes with their spell slots feel the same', you can make them feel unique even if they use the same underlying mechanics.

You have classes that rely on short rests, long rests, don't really need a rest as long as they can be healed.. You have classes that prepare spells, ones that don't their spells, ones that rely primarily on cantrips, ones that don't use spells at all. For me there is far more variance in feel, planning, basic strategies for approach to the game with 5E than there was in 4E.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Starting to honestly wonder if there are any games that meet your standards of balance. Do you have any examples?

TBF, it's not a specific bar. Any game can be better balanced, and, as I've said, perfection is not possible. I could never point to a game as an exemplar of balance, because it'll have things in it that are clearly imbalanced or could be better balanced.

It's easy to point out games that are badly balanced, and what's imbalanced about them, especially as the current edition of D&D is so well known and familiar and so imbalanced.

This idea that balance existed in 1D&D is complete nonsense, there is far les than there is today.

What was different about 1e AD&D is that there were so many attempts at imposing balancing factors. EGG tried to balance the Paladin with RP restrictions & stat mins, tried to balance spell casting with casting time, interruption, all sorts of persnicketty little details like needing both hands or standing upright or not on a moving mount and IDK what all, there were so many and scattered about, tried to prop up fighter with favorable weighting of the random magic items table, etc, etc...
Subsequent editions have scraped most of that off, because it gets very inconvenient, was often circumvented anyway, and plain didn't work well. But, most subsequent edition haven't taken the obvious step of, sufficiently decreasing the power of the thing being arbitrarily/clumsily/ineffetually 'balanced' in some quixotic manner that seemed like a good idea in c1978, to a level that it would actually balance.

So, no, 1e wasn't balanced, but it tried. It was a good faith attempt when the entire hobby had only existed for, like, half a decade.

 

[Micah Sweet]

TBF, it's not a specific bar. Any game can be better balanced, and, as I've said, perfection is not possible. I could never point to a game as an exemplar of balance, because it'll have things in it that are clearly imbalanced or could be better balanced.

It's easy to point out games that are badly balanced, and what's imbalanced about them, especially as the current edition of D&D is so well known and familiar and so imbalanced.


What was different about 1e AD&D is that there were so many attempts at imposing balancing factors. EGG tried to balance the Paladin with RP restrictions & stat mins, tried to balance spell casting with casting time, interruption, all sorts of persnicketty little details like needing both hands or standing upright or not on a moving mount and IDK what all, there were so many and scattered about, tried to prop up fighter with favorable weighting of the random magic items table, etc, etc...
Subsequent editions have scraped most of that off, because it gets very inconvenient, was often circumvented anyway, and plain didn't work well. But, most subsequent edition haven't taken the obvious step of, sufficiently decreasing the power of the thing being arbitrarily/clumsily/ineffetually 'balanced' in some quixotic manner that seemed like a good idea in c1978, to a level that it would actually balance.

So, no, 1e wasn't balanced, but it tried. It was a good faith attempt when the entire hobby had only existed for, like, half a decade.

Don't mean to be aggressive, but are you saying that no game is adequately balanced, but all games could be balanced better? Are you just gaming anyway in spite of this?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Don't mean to be aggressive, but are you saying that no game is adequately balanced, but all games could be balanced better? Are you just gaming anyway in spite of this?

Not at all, I get it. I mean, lots of games outside D&D and its orbit are adequately balanced to play as is, I'm sure. But adequate to play w/o intervention to compensate for (or exploit) imbalance is not nearly enough to serve as an aspirational exemplar of balance. Like, "in lieu of or in support of a definition, look at this game," no, nothing that stands out so brilliant or flawless as to serve that purpose.

And yes, any and all TTRPGs could be better - perfect balance is impossible.

 

[Scribe]

Not at all, I get it. I mean, lots of games outside D&D and its orbit are adequately balanced to play as is, I'm sure. But adequate to play w/o intervention to compensate for (or exploit) imbalance is not nearly enough to serve as an aspirational exemplar of balance. Like, "in lieu of or in support of a definition, look at this game," no, nothing that stands out so brilliant or flawless as to serve that purpose.

And yes, any and all games could be better - perfect balance is impossible.

Chess? Checkers???

 

[Tony Vargas]

Chess? Checkers???

TTRPGs.

Competitive boardgames, the important thing is fairness. Both sides being the same is generally pretty fair.

(Chess famously gives an advantage to white, FWIW.)

 

[Scribe]

TTRPGs, I assume.

OK OK. That I can accept, as the amount of moving parts in even a stripped down RPG is going to be high.

 

[ECMO3]

Well, as for Paladins and Rangers, not really. Don't forget that higher ability scores don't generally mean much in AD&D until you get to very high numbers. I mean, let's look at the Paladin for example.

Str 12, Int 9, Wis 13, Con 9, Cha 17. I can't recall if Paladins gain bonus spell slots for high Wisdom, but even if they do, that 13 means they get an additional 1st level spell slot at level 9. So the only real benefit here is that 17 Charisma for the 10 Henchman and +30% loyalty bonus and reaction adjustment. I don't know if that's blowing other characters out of the water, it probably depends on the campaign, but in my personal experience, I never saw that as being the case.

To start with the +30 reaction adjustment is huge in play. With +30 you were gauranteed that people you met would not be hostile! GARAUNTEED as the maximum to be hostile was 25% and with a 1 on a d100 roll you got a 31. Further one in three Paladins had an 18 and not a 17 which meant +35. In play nearly half of creatures you encountered would be "enthusiastically friendly" towards a Paladin. In the 1E combat system avoiding combat, or even acting first was a big, big deal.

Second there are two sets of Paladin mimimums. Those you cite are the early minimums, the late minimums once they became a subclass of Cavalier were: S 15, I 9, W 13, D15, C 15, Cha 17

Third, where your high and low rolls landed was random, so while a floor of 13 in Wisdom or 9 in Constitution does not seem like a big deal, there were many fighters running around with 7s in one of those scores and taking a -1 to your saves or having only a 40% chance to be resurected is a very big deal in play.

 

[James Gasik]

To start with the +30 reaction adjustment is huge in play. With +30 you were gauranteed that people you met would not be hostile! GARAUNTEED as the maximum to be hostile was 25% and with a 1 on a d100 roll you got a 31. Further one in three Paladins had an 18 and not a 17 which meant +35. In play nearly half of creatures you encountered would be "enthusiastically friendly" towards a Paladin. In the 1E combat system avoiding combat, or even acting first was a big, big deal.

Second there are two sets of Paladin mimimums. Those you cite are the early minimums, the late minimums once they became a subclass of Cavalier were: S 15, I 9, W 13, D15, C 15, Cha 17

Third, where your high and low rolls landed was random, so while a floor of 13 in Wisdom or 9 in Constitution does not seem like a big deal, there were many fighters running around with 7s in one of those scores and taking a -1 to your saves or having only a 40% chance to be resurected is a very big deal in play.

My experience with Charisma in AD&D is different, which is why I mentioned it depended on the campaign. By the rules, absolutely you are correct. However, I'm not entirely sure if any of my AD&D DM's used the rules for NPC reactions at all.

I will say that once you bring Unearthed Arcana into the mix, high Charisma's value changes a bit- high Charisma raises Comeliness, and, if used, evil creatures react negatively to positive Comeliness, which could throw a spanner in the "avoid combat" scenario by lowering your total reaction adjustment.

As for the Cavalier Paladin, that's a bit more fair, but there's a lot of extra things going on with the subclass Paladin like being able to raise your attributes at level up, sterner RP requirements, and sub-levels (maybe? I'm fuzzy about how that worked), but in general, that's a little more fair.

(Then again, if UA is in play, the alternate ability score generation might also be in play, which skews high for everyone).

I stand by my point however, that having the stat requirements for the subclasses doesn't necessarily make your character much more powerful since the bonuses gained for stats are so low in AD&D. Let's look at the Ranger-

Str 13, Int 13, 14 Wis, 14 Con. Not a numerical bonus in sight beyond (maybe, still not sure about this) 2 bonus Druid spells at 9th level. I'm not completely discounting System Shock for a good Con- that's always great to have, but this isn't exactly a super character!

Your comment about ceilings and floors for stat distribution doesn't hold water; for all we know, the qualifying stats are the high points, and everything else is below 9! I don't feel that great as a Ranger with 7 Dexterity!

Given that the PHB states on page 9 that "it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics", and that Method I for generating ability scores is 4d6 drop 1 in the DMG, I don't think qualifying for most classes was all that difficult, nor that characters who couldn't qualify for a "elite class" were automatically inferior in power. I could be unable to qualify to be a Paladin and still have a pair of 18's elsewhere!