|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 5:13AM
#11
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />This makes no sense, the fact that you don't use something past a point does not give the fact that it's broken any less weight!
To you.
I don't agree with the sentiment either but I don't try to proclaim my way as the only way. Whomever made that statement...it is not broken to them. That doesn't change because you view it differently.
Ignore whether high level play is actually broken, and this thread still has a valid point. If someone has found a problem (real or imagined) then one of the least helpful responses out there is, "I don't use that feature, so you shouldn't either." That's the real point, not the side premise that high level play has problems.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 5:40AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2004
|
I've heard a lot of arguments that support the same basic attitude. Old school players don't like a lot of the new changes, so they do thier best to dissmiss or understate the flaws blatantly inherit in the system. Either by arguing that the issues are irrelevent (we don't play past X level) or neccesary (figthers are supposed to suck late game) A lot of it is irrational fear of change. The rest is just plan stubborness.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 5:47AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2012
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />This makes no sense, the fact that you don't use something past a point does not give the fact that it's broken any less weight!
To you.
I don't agree with the sentiment either but I don't try to proclaim my way as the only way. Whomever made that statement...it is not broken to them. That doesn't change because you view it differently.
To every honest thinking human being. This is mush-minded relativism at its worst, trying to claim that because judgments have to be made in context judgments are impossible.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 6:06AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2012
|
Who are you to tell someone what it is or isn't an issue?
This isn't real life. No one is being harmed by balance issues in DnD.
If someone is completely happy with whatever aspect of whatever edition, who are you to tell them that they're wrong?
I personally think that gameplay at all levels matter. I play at all levels.
I'm not about to tell people that disagree with me that their opinion is invalid.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 6:13AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2012
|
I'm not about to tell people that disagree with me that their opinion is invalid.
You are doing exactly that, at this very moment, denigrating the opinions, thoughts, and feelings of everyone who disagrees with you by claiming that their concerns are unreal.
This isn't real life. No one is being harmed by balance issues in DnD.
If you believed your claim that the rules of DnD could never be better or worse, you would never speak on this forum.
You are not only posting on this forum, but doing so prolifically.
Ergo, you are lying.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 6:18AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2012
|
I'm not about to tell people that disagree with me that their opinion is invalid.
You are doing exactly that, at this very moment, denigrating the opinions, thoughts, and feelings of everyone who disagrees with you by claiming that their concerns are unreal.
This isn't real life. No one is being harmed by balance issues in DnD.
If you believed your claim that the rules of DnD could never be better or worse, you would never speak on this forum.
You are not only posting on this forum, but doing so prolifically.
Ergo, you are lying.
Wait, what?
You're saying that someone is being harmed by balance issues in DnD? When did I claim DnD could never be better or worse?
If the basis for "denigrating someone's opinion" is disagreement, I'm not sure conversation is possible.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 6:40AM
#17
|
|
|
Truth be told, the power curse has always been my problem with D&D. Improvements were made in 4E but my problem with that is that it didn't feel like D&D. I'm fine with low power progression as we're seeing so far with the playtest. I don't want to see broken wizards. I have no problem if their combat spells keep in line with fighter damage, as long as there is some kind of ritual mechanic that allows for the creation of alternate planes, spreading mass plagues, etc that anyone of sufficient ability (regardless of class) can do. Clerics and wizards should have an option that allows them be better at rituals (Cleric of Orcus anyone), but it should be an option.
Having said that, I do NOT want to see fighters to have "dailies" and wizards spells work like crossbows either. Magic should be magical and work differently. I also don't want a 2 axis chart of power source and role and then pigeon hole a class somewhere in that chart. If I want to build a fighter that can knock people around and stop movement (i.e. a 4E controller), I should be able to do that. And he should be fine next to the fighter that can tumber around the battlefield using a finesse weapon (i.e. a 4E striker). If I want a wizard that focuses on utility spells and all but ignores damage/combat related spells (a 4E none-of-the-above), he should be fine next to the wizard that focuses on fireball (which should be round and not square) and magic missile (striker).
Its my character. Its my choice to make a suboptimal character for role playing reasons if I want to.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 6:57AM
#18
|
|
|
Who are you to tell someone what it is or isn't an issue?
This isn't real life. No one is being harmed by balance issues in DnD.
If someone is completely happy with whatever aspect of whatever edition, who are you to tell them that they're wrong?
I personally think that gameplay at all levels matter. I play at all levels.
I'm not about to tell people that disagree with me that their opinion is invalid.
I guess my answer would have to be that after playing and DMing extensively from 1975 until now that high level play has always been highly problematic, and a large part of that has always been (and increasingly from OD&D through 3.5) casters outstipping everyone else. If I were the ONLY one that has observed this I'd probably assume it was a peculiarity of the way I tend to play. OTOH I think it is safe to say that LARGE, probably overwhelmingly large but it is hard to say, segments of the community have observed exactly the same thing.
Thus I would have to say that from the standpoint of anyone designing a new edition of D&D that this is in fact something they need to address. While I cannot fathom how your particular experience arises (as dominating the game with a 2e wizard at high levels for instance is trivially easy and almost inevitable) I've no problem with accepting you have that experience. I just have to assume you play a very different style of game than any of the people I've ever played with. One that clearly has little relevant to say about what I would see as design issues from where I come from.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 6:59AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2012
|
Truth be told, the power curse has always been my problem with D&D. Improvements were made in 4E but my problem with that is that it didn't feel like D&D. I'm fine with low power progression as we're seeing so far with the playtest. I don't want to see broken wizards. I have no problem if their combat spells keep in line with fighter damage, as long as there is some kind of ritual mechanic that allows for the creation of alternate planes, spreading mass plagues, etc that anyone of sufficient ability (regardless of class) can do. Clerics and wizards should have an option that allows them be better at rituals (Cleric of Orcus anyone), but it should be an option.
Having said that, I do NOT want to see fighters to have "dailies" and wizards spells work like crossbows either. Magic should be magical and work differently. I also don't want a 2 axis chart of power source and role and then pigeon hole a class somewhere in that chart. If I want to build a fighter that can knock people around and stop movement (i.e. a 4E controller), I should be able to do that. And he should be fine next to the fighter that can tumber around the battlefield using a finesse weapon (i.e. a 4E striker). If I want a wizard that focuses on utility spells and all but ignores damage/combat related spells (a 4E none-of-the-above), he should be fine next to the wizard that focuses on fireball (which should be round and not square) and magic missile (striker).
Its my character. Its my choice to make a suboptimal character for role playing reasons if I want to.
I find it weird that people seem to complain a lot about 4e to be limiting, like why can i not play who uses a bow and does a lot of damage? I mean they say this full well knowing if that is what they had wanted to do they could just play a ranger. I mean there is some railroading of what a class does, there are a lot of options to choose between so that it is hard not to make the character you want. Like there was this guy complaing because he couldnt play a striker fighter, when there are multiple melee strikers to choose between like seriously.
Anyway on topic, while what you saying is true, they also need to make sure to balance the lower level of the caster so they dont feel useless from like level 1-4/5. Since from my experience most games dont go on beyind above level 10 i think is the point people are making. Some people think that the class is balanced over the 20 levels, which it isnt, but that is a point to remember. There whole game needs to be balanced from level to level, rather than the power creep. Also with additions it becomes harder and harder for spellcasters not to get more imbalanced with vancian since they get more spells with no loss to other class features as you would expect if say the fighter got bonus stuff.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 7:05AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2012
|
Who are you to tell someone what it is or isn't an issue?
This isn't real life. No one is being harmed by balance issues in DnD.
If someone is completely happy with whatever aspect of whatever edition, who are you to tell them that they're wrong?
I personally think that gameplay at all levels matter. I play at all levels.
I'm not about to tell people that disagree with me that their opinion is invalid.
I guess my answer would have to be that after playing and DMing extensively from 1975 until now that high level play has always been highly problematic, and a large part of that has always been (and increasingly from OD&D through 3.5) casters outstipping everyone else. If I were the ONLY one that has observed this I'd probably assume it was a peculiarity of the way I tend to play. OTOH I think it is safe to say that LARGE, probably overwhelmingly large but it is hard to say, segments of the community have observed exactly the same thing.
Thus I would have to say that from the standpoint of anyone designing a new edition of D&D that this is in fact something they need to address. While I cannot fathom how your particular experience arises (as dominating the game with a 2e wizard at high levels for instance is trivially easy and almost inevitable) I've no problem with accepting you have that experience. I just have to assume you play a very different style of game than any of the people I've ever played with. One that clearly has little relevant to say about what I would see as design issues from where I come from.
Maybe I'm doing a terrible job of expressing myself. I don't know.
I'm not disagreeing with you as I've stated multiple times. I personally think that gameplay balance is important across all levels. (Exactly what that balance entails is a totally different topic.)
What I'm specifically contending in this thread is the, "You play differently than me therefore you're wrong and playing wrong" statements. Nothing more.
|
|
|
