Community

May 7, 2012 -- 10:03PM, lofgren wrote:

OK.

a. That's not what a false dichotomy is. If you're going to invoke a formal logical fallacy, at least have the decency to look it up on wikipedia before you make yourself look like an idiot.

b. Yes, it is necessary for the entire package to be balanced, but there is a difference between where a stat is determined and where it is modified, and penalizing a stat across packets creates a balance nightmare. Or, more specifically, a system with both penalties and bonuses creates a nightmare. But since a system with only penalties is not going to happen (and anyway requires unnecessary system mastery from both player and designer for no gain), there is no point in really considering it.

I was actually just using the words, and forgot it had a formal logical definition.  My bad.

What I meant was that you are artificially creating distinctions where none exist.

Let me explain the difference between something that is "determined" by race as opposed to "modified."

I am a dwarf. What is my speed? What is my strength score? How many healing surges do I have?

One of these questions you can answer. The other two you cannot. Yes, I can take a class or feats to boost my speed, but the fact is that absent another factor that provides a bonus to speed, my speed is 5. Speed is determined by race, so knowing a character's race means that you know their speed. If I am a DM who wants to give out some extra points for ability scores, those points are not going to affect PC's speed. If I want to create a new class, I know that PCs are already going to have a speed when they decide whether to choose that class.

I am a warden. How many hitpoints do I have? What's my racial power? What is my strength? Again, one of these questions you can answer, the other two you can't.

And yet, it doesn't matter.  Since every character has both a race and a class, what matters is the package at the end.

I am assuming no such thing. In fact, my whole argument is that because it is not possible to balance in a vacuum, it is crucial that each element have a standardized expectation of minimum effectiveness, and that is impossible if the elements are detracting from each other's effectiveness.

I don't understand how you get to your conclusion.  If you're looking for an expectation of minimum, why wouldn't you simply assume that it has a penalty?  Any expectation should be based on what is available.  An expectation of the maximum is just as important as the expectation of the minimum; and the difference between maximum and minimum (in this context) will be determined by the stat spread.  And it doesn't matter whether a stat spread of 2 was arrived at by bonus, penalty, or both; the effect it has on the difference between max and min will be identical.  Further, calculating all three relevant datum (maximum, minimum, and spread) is just as simple in any of these systems.

Right. Characters must be balanced. In order to accomplish that, you need to establish baselines. If a character's race penalizes that character's ability score point-buy, or class features, or powers, then you cannot establish baselines. When I go to design a new class it is impossible for me to have any expectation that my class will function in an effective manner, because the player might choose a race that reduces its healing surges by 50% and makes it almost unplayable. I can't design the class to work best with 16s in its primary and secondary stats because I don't know with any certainty whether the player will be able to buy those stats without totally gimping himself due to racial choice. There is no way for me to be certain that my class will function as intended unless I also know what race the player has chosen.

Again, I don't undestand your conclusions.  See above.

These benchmarks are crucial to balancing the game, at least if 5e is going to function in a recognizable way. It's true that other choices the developers make might mitigate some of these problems, but that would almost certainly require highly developed system mastery from anybody seeking to add new rules to the system without unbalancing it without repair, and would require DnD to function in a way that would be very different from the way it has functioned previously.

I agree that it's important to understand the minimum effectiveness of a class.  But I don't understand why you ignore the maximum and spread.  Having any racial bonus affects the maximum, and frankly, the maximum is more important than the minimum for balance; ignoring the maximum possiblities is how you get things like the feycharger, murderous mind, and Pun-Pun.  Ignoring the minimum can create characters who are weak, or close to unplayable (depending on where you draw the line between 'weak' and 'unplayable'); like a dwarven sorcerer|bard, or a 3E half-orc wizard.  Weak characters ruin one player's fun, Pun-Pun ruins everyone's fun.