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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thus the quotes around wrong. It's not wrong to play what you want, but if your character under-contributes because it is mechanically inferior, it's bad for the whole party, and even for the campaign making it harder on the DM. It's not wrong, but because the game is imbalanced, it's 'punished.' (There are those quotes again: as in, it has negative consequences. Not as in it's meant to correct an unacceptable behavior.)

There can certainly be instances where a player wants an inferior or under-contributing character, but a balanced game would allow that to be done advisedly, and without dictating that only certain general concepts could be that way D&D-like games already have level as well as class, so, even in the nearly unprecedented case of balanced classes, a player intentionally wishing for an inferior character in a group and with a DM both willing to work with that, could simply play a lower level PC than everyone else.

That is increasing imbalance. What you are saying, and you're not wrong, is that sub-classes are imbalanced within each class.

Each choice the game presents must be balanced with it's alternatives. Races should be balanced with other races, classes with other classes, sub-classes with other sub-classes w/in the same class.

Imbalance tends to make imbalance worse. Class, especially as you level, is by far the most significant choice you make for your character. Classes are imbalanced. Sol, yes, an inferior class may well benefit 'more' from choice of race or feet or background - in a relative sense, since it has less going for it, any improvement is bigger proportionally.

Perfect balance is impossible. Less terrible balance is the only plausible goal without re-writing 5e from the ground up.

One mistake classic D&D made was trying to balance classes across all levels.
Since all classes use the same exp progression, they should balance at each level.

Balance is all about choice. Improving balance means more real choices.

It is a bizarre feature of 5e that no class doesn't cast spells, yes.
None the less, the issue of D&D making non-supernatural characters profoundly inferior remains, with the handful of non-supernatural sub-classes being inferior to their supernatural counterparts.

Mod Note:

It would be cooler if you didn’t load your response with value-laden judgements of other’s’preferences.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How is a definition of balance that would lead you to making games worse a useful definition?

Because it is what the word actually means. Balance doesn't just mean "good." You indeed can balance a game in way that makes the overall game worse.

Yes, making resource management a critical part of a cooperative game, then presenting some options which contribute many such resources and other that contribute few or none, is bad for balance (again, either definition), for agency, for playability, for designing challenges - it's just plain bad design.

I don't agree. Sure, it makes balancing harder, but it also makes different classes play differently. Whether that is worth it or not is a matter of taste.

That's not homogenizing classes,

Yes it absolutely is.

It's not innately a bad thing by any measure, really,

No it isn't, but it nevertheless it is something a lot of people evidently do not like, at leas if it is taken as far as 4e did.

Force? Classes are choices, class design is not done by the player, so the design of classes isn''t being forced, it should just be trying to present the player with as many good choices as possible. So, specialization in the form of 'dominates play in a narrow scope in return for being worthless most of the rest of the time' - in a cooperative game, probably a bad idea. Even if it were, say, mathmatically balanced over a long, currated, series of situations, it doesn't seem like recipe for good play experiences.... I've already mentioned "netrunner problem," right?

Now, if the players have significant agency to shape the situations they face, it may make sense to make that a primary focus of play. Players devise characters that are optimal for a specific situation, then apply said agency to bring about that situation. The game is won or lost in engineering situations, not in resolving them.
Doesn't actually change anything, the game would still need to be balanced, this time the balance would be around the plotting that brings about the desired situation, which in effect becomes a foregone victory.
This style of game is sometimes called 'CaW'

It depends on the scope of the game and the variability of that scope. D&D presents itself as a generic fantasy game for characters as minor as apprentices, or as earth-shaking as the gods themselves. It delivers a system that may arguably be balanced if you run little more than 6-encounter dungeon crawls that must be finished w/in 24 hours and consist mostly of combat encounters where the monsters are outnumbered, and the party's level is in the range of 3-10.
So, yeah, if you want a game with a narrowly defined, consistent scope, you can have characters who are tightly specialized in something common/important w/in that scope, and others that are nearly as effective, more generally with virtually everything w/in that scope and maybe other things outside it that may happen once in a blue moon.
If you want a game with a more expansive scope that might be run with very different emphasis w/in that, then, no, idiot-specialist is not a good design option even if you make it wildly effective if it ever comes up, every character will need to be usefully, and distinctly, contributing most of the time.

Right. So you value balance over variety of character builds. To you that might seem like a worthwhile sacrifice, but you must understand that not everyone is going to agree. These things are not just about good or bad design, they're matters of taste.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

And not a penalty in sight either, which many, many non-Paladins had in one ability or another.

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!

But statistically it is not. Statistically if you roll the minimums in all the minimum stats you are likely to have no roll at all below 9 on your entire array.

You are not looking at how minimums play with the chance of rolling maximums. A character who qualified to play a fighter statistically has a 6% chance for a bonus in strength (16 or higher) and a 0.6% chance of having an 18. A character who qualifies to play a Ranger has a 20% chance to have a 16 or higher and a 2% chance of having an 18.

This is true across the board. AD&D 1E Fighters again have a 10% chance of having a wisdom bonus to saves or a Constitution bonus to hit points. Rangers have 57% chance of having a stat with the 15+ to get a bonus.

It is an undeniable fact if you rolled well enough to play a Monk or Paladin or Ranger, statistically you would likely have the best array in the entire 8-person party. The Monk was pathetically weak so this was not as big a deal for them, but characters who qualified for the Paladin and Ranger where normally the most powerful in the party by a wide margin.

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.

If you use 4d6d1 in order, your chance of successfully qualifying for a Paladin or Ranger is 3%.

I could be unable to qualify to be a Paladin and still have a pair of 18's elsewhere!

You have the exact same chance of having an 18 "elsewhere", but less of a chance of having an 18 where those minimums are.

For example an AD&D 1E Ranger has the exact same chane of having an 18 Charisma as a cleric does. However because they have a higher minimum in all other scores, they have a higher likelihood of having an 18 Strength, Intelligence, Dexterity or Constitution and a Ranger is 4 TIMES as likely to have an 18 Wisdom than a 1E Cleric is.

Your chance of rolling 2 18s with 4d6d1 is 0.4% your chance of having 2 18s if you qualify for Ranger or Paladin is about 1.5% or three times as great.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because it is what the word actually means. Balance doesn't just mean "good." You indeed can balance a game in way that makes the overall game worse.

Confusion often comes from using different definitions, which is why I presented the one I found useful. If you define balance as "everyone is the same" it'll be, at best, a mixed quality, and of little value either in understanding a game or in improving it.

So, forget balance, never speak of it again.

What word would you accept for the idea of presenting the player with as many choices as possible that are both meaningful and viable?

 

[Garthanos]

Chess? Checkers???

or rock paper scissors lizard spock... chess and checkers have an initiative imbalance

 

[Scribe]

What word would you accept for the idea of presenting the player with as many choices as possible that are both meaningful and viable?

Broad? Deep?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Broad? Deep?

Depth is already a meaningful concept in talking about games. Breadth, likewise, about their scope.

I can see how they'd get across more choices (or more other things). How do they imply meaningful or viable choices?

When we talk about 'imbalance' without definition, it's generally pretty clear that something is over- or under-powered. That's some choices being non-viable - an under-powered choice is, an overpowerd choice makes even reasonable choices less viable.

If you talk about a game being shallow or narrow, it doesn't suggest that there are overpowerd or underpowered or meaningless choices. Just that the game doesn't have a lot of content.

 

[Scribe]

Depth is already a meaningful concept in talking about games. Breadth, likewise, about their scope.

I can see how they'd get across more choices (or more other things). How do they imply meaningful or viable choices?

Breadth and depth have been used to describe games with significant options and complexity forever.

The illusion of those things, is when choices exist, but they are either meaningless or poor.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

(I should share a definition of balance that I encountered that I've found helpful
A game is better balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both meaningful and viable.)

Perfect balance is impossible, and better balanced games are increasingly more difficult to create & maintain.
Presenting the characters with more choices, so they can do a wider variety of things that are worth doing, is creating a better balanced game.

I don't believe the fundamental disagreement is about sorts of balance.

The Fighter v Wizard math calculations are an example. They show the fighter theoretically balancing with the wizard in DPR (the fighter's best thing, nearly it's only thing & not exactly the much more versatile wizard's best thing), over the vaguely recommended 6-encounter day, if those encounters are against a relatively low number of foes, and non-DPR resources are not considered.

That there are so many other ways to play the game that place less emphasis on single-target DPR, only means the actual martial/gap is that much wider.

(Though, TBF, tradition implies the default way to play the game is grueling time-important dungeon crawls.)

I think it was just a pendulum-swing. 3e made skills the stuff of extreme specialization, you could either invest heavily in a skill and be awsome (insane/broken if it was Diplomacy), or as you leveled, you became utterly worthless at it against same-level challenges - "overwhelming the d20." 4e moved off that peak by giving everyone a baseline progression so even untrained stayed relevant at higher levels, while trained/specialized became extremely good. 5e continued towards the opposite peak, where training/level just doesn't make much of a difference and "everyone's got a shot" - Expertise has kept it off that peak.

I appreciate when people operationalize what they are talking about!

That said at a certain point more choices increases complexity. That some people still play becmi or no longer play 3e suggests that increased complexity is not always desirable. 5e does offer options on that continuum.

Choosing a class is a meta choice and getting rid of more straightforward play is in its own way limiting.

That aside, since it’s not a competitive game and not everyone wants more to consider in addition to their roleplaying, why must all themes have the same number of choices if their theme and flavor are represented?

my most recent character was a barbarian and blade pact warlock. Do I melee? Probably but there are things nvocations do, spells, smites, and skills. Raging or not, sneaking casting…feats, etc

Forward to gen con and I played a half orc champion and had a blast. I was pretending something different and approached the game differently. Simpler in. Buttons to push but lots of roleplay and fun scoring hits.

I don’t feel it’s bad that I got to have different sorts of experiences in the same game. I could have chosen battlemaster I realize but wanted to play a champion.

Not seeing how that is a bad thing. Actually for a guy (me) that has played miniature and wargames it does not offend.

I am not putting down anyone’s preferences but fail to see how choices of complexity are necessarily a bad thing if the class or archetype is sufficiently represented.

This is even more the case when we talk about a single subclass!

Our favored champion of the gods (oath of glory, etc) warrior mage (blade boon warlock, eldritch knight) with feats are only a few page turns away.

 

[Pedantic]

Depth is already a meaningful concept in talking about games. Breadth, likewise, about their scope.

I can see how they'd get across more choices (or more other things). How do they imply meaningful or viable choices?

When we talk about 'imbalance' without definition, it's generally pretty clear that something is over- or under-powered. That's some choices being non-viable - an under-powered choice is, an overpowerd choice makes even reasonable choices less viable.

If you talk about a game being shallow or narrow, it doesn't suggest that there are overpowerd or underpowered or meaningless choices. Just that the game doesn't have a lot of content.

In the context of a competitive game, you'd be talking about prioritizing a diverse meta over a balanced meta.

There was a period in the game Netrunner where the top level of competitive play narrowed down to essentially a single matchup, because those two decks were sufficiently effective against basically anything else that could be fielded. However, the game between those decks was generally agreed to be very tight, dynamic and interesting, requiring a lot of skill to navigate and producing diverse board states.

There was widespread disagreement as to how "balanced" the game was at that point. Ultimately the design goals shifted to prioritize a more diverse meta, but you can still find competitive players who viewed that as the design's highwater mark.

Obviously not a directly analogous situation, but I think it demonstrates how competing priorities are a factor. I'm not sure how the language could apply here.