Community

Nothing you do should destroy the DMs storyline...ideally.  The system should be able to get his back and allow him to recover from the unexpected and teach him that it is ok for his initial plans to get derailed.  This is a vital skill for a DM.  DMGs need to do a better job at teaching a new DM this and getting his back too.

Perfect balance isn't necessary either.  Even just being within 5% or even 10% and that's close enough so that a lot of imbalance will be hidden by statistical noise and decision-making, particularly if the 5-10% isn't in just one thing but a mess of things all over so it is hard to see (of course, if it is just one thing, it is easier to adjust).

I do think 4E had too much sameness, and not enough emphasis on player creativity, particularly with how the PHB was written -- and yeah, the PHB has to be written to teach new and old players how to approach the game from a player perspective and that includes philosophical underpinnings that need to be woven throughout the book.  I don't think that's necessary at all for balance, it's just a lazy way to do it.

I really want Next to take SOME queues from 4E, even though I dislike 4E.  Page 42 of the DMG as guidelines for improvisation and its effects is a good place to start, as are the rules for monster creation (which should be even easier in 5e given how AC and to-hit is intended to work).  But I don't want to see classes that largely look identical -- use some playtesting and math to get them reasonably balanced with each other even though they use different systems.

My view is very simple.  Many people look at the structure of the new edition, and they either like it or dislike it.  If they like it, they tend to defend it (sometimes without just cause).  If they dislike it, they attack it (sometimes without just cause).

The most common attack (from my observations and opinion) is to equate it to another edition's weakness.  Some see it as a 2e clone and assume it will have the same faults as 2e.  Others see a 3e clone and assume it will have the same faults.  Most don't (want to) see that these assumptions are premature at this point.  For example Vancian casting was broken in the past; however, it does not exclude it from being a fully functional system if the power curve of spells are balanced against other game mechanics.  Sure fighters were inherently weaker in 3e; however, that does not preclude the developers from addressing that issue while maintainng a "retro" feel.  It might have a simple or hard fix; however, most people don't want to depart from their assumptions.

Half (actually I would go with 90%) of the arguments for and against the new edition are pretty baseless due to their dependence on assumptions that haven't been confirmed at this time.  Having said that, it's going to happen despite any effort taken by you, other people or myself.  Since it's going to happen, each individual (at least the ones that are willing to work with WotC) need to take each post with a grain of salt and not get too emotionally invested in that post.  Restating the same thing over and over between two disputing parties is just a waste of time.  Sure, you can try another approach to impart your point of view.  However, you have to let go at a certain point. 

It might seem weird, but in the end, it's just a game.       

Jun 21, 2012 -- 4:16PM, Drachasor wrote:

Jun 21, 2012 -- 4:15PM, abanathie wrote:

It might seem weird, but in the end, it's just a game.       

That's where you're wrong, friend.

FUU WHY DID YOU LINK TVTRO-*clicks link, comes back 5 hours later*
Alright where was I?...oh yeah, TVTROOOOOPES

Jun 21, 2012 -- 4:09PM, greatfrito wrote:

Sameness isn't the only way to get Balance - really, it's just an incredibly lazy way to do so.

4e really could have used a massive expansion away from the basic core design, at a much faster rate than it had.

Hell, they could have nailed down their "core" system, and then made a particular point and effort to include in the PH at least one class that dramatically diverged from that system while remaining balanced, just to show that they could.

But hey, "lazy" is how I might describe a lot of decisions in 4e's cycle.

Exactly, a thousand times, yes.

I think you are right lokiare.  In the abstract, who doesn't want balance.  It's not the number one priority for many people though.  I guess if imbalance got bad enough it could become a high priority but the imperfect balance of earlier editions was not bad enough.  The choices made to balance things in 4e was too great a cost for a lot of us.

I'm not sure if a game can be created that is perfectly balanced but still fun.  I hope.  In theory it seems possible.  I've yet to see it though.  

In 5e, I'm positive that a lot of 4e people will say it's not balanced.  If you use class W and class F then they don't equalize.  I hope though they can be happy by using a set of classes that they feel are balanced.  I will use the imbalanced classes because honestly it will be far better than 3e I'm sure and I could live with 3e balance wise.  I have other complaints with 3e. 

I hope you guys have enough compassion in your hearts that when a player wants to play the "weaker" simple option you let them.  I think they will be able to contribute in your eyes.