|
10 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 11:09AM
#121
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
But what is the second class? I don't think complexity alone is enough for a class to stand on; it needs an actual definition, something that makes it different from other classes.
It could be any melee class. Generally, several classes in each category are released in an edition. They could work one of the melee classes to be simple. I know it can be done, but I'm not one of the designers, so I haven't done it myself.
I'm still not seeing anything wrong with a class that can be as complex as the player wants. In fact, to me that is a strength, because you don't need dozens of classes. You just include options within each class so that they can be tailored to suit the needs of different players.
It's like saying that you can make a wizard as complex or as simple as you want simply not not using all your spell slots or choosing new spells. Better to have a wizard for those who want complex arcane, and the 3e warlock for those who don't.
No, it's like saying you can make a wizard as complex or as simple as you want by picking Burning Hands for all of your spell slots, or choosing from the whole list.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 11:17AM
#122
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
But what is the second class? I don't think complexity alone is enough for a class to stand on; it needs an actual definition, something that makes it different from other classes.
It could be any melee class. Generally, several classes in each category are released in an edition. They could work one of the melee classes to be simple. I know it can be done, but I'm not one of the designers, so I haven't done it myself.
I'm still not seeing anything wrong with a class that can be as complex as the player wants. In fact, to me that is a strength, because you don't need dozens of classes. You just include options within each class so that they can be tailored to suit the needs of different players.
It's like saying that you can make a wizard as complex or as simple as you want simply not not using all your spell slots or choosing new spells. Better to have a wizard for those who want complex arcane, and the 3e warlock for those who don't.
No, it's like saying you can make a wizard as complex or as simple as you want by picking Burning Hands for all of your spell slots, or choosing from the whole list.
I still don't see why someone should be forced to look at the whole list in order to decide to only use burning hands. Better to just use a class like the 3e warlock for the simple class so that the person who doesn't want to have to think about all the options, doesn't have to.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 11:17AM
#123
|
|
|
You have this charming naivety about numbers man. You seem to think that if two numbers happen to go in the same direction or that if something has a number attached to it and it scales that somehow magically that means it is 'balanced'. Not even close to true. In fact the whole CS thing is almost a perfect model of 'hard to balance' because one core equivalency covers a wide array of options and the different variables (die size, die quantity, and effects cost) are all interrelated instead of being independent. You might want to design a few games  I won't write CS off, and I think almost anything can work over a narrow enough range of situations, but it shows every sign of being an unworkable mechanic IMHO.
They're defined independently, but yes they are interrelated. I'm not disputing that. In fact it's their combinations that allow you to tweak things.
I'm not saying you just throw numbers at a wall and it becomes balanced. I'm saying that there are enough levers to pull and knobs to turn so that when you determine what you want the fighter's power to be, you can design that power curve in. It's a design and optimization process, something that I am intimately familiar with because it's what I do professionally. You get enough degrees of freedom, and you can shape the curve to be whatever you want. CS has many more DOF than any previous fighter I've ever seen (aside from 4e's power system, which isn't as nearly a coherent structure like this - 4e's strict level independence makes each level of powers able to be designed in isolation from the rest of the class, which is not the same thing at all).
As far as my game design cred, I've done my share of amateur stuff. As well as paying rather close attention to the game design process for many different games over the last decade or so.
You say it's unworkable - can you provide more detail? I see enough flexibility in the system so that the numbers and progression can fit with the monsters and match the progression in other classes. There's detail in that analysis, or at least the potential for the numbers to work because you get to choose what the numbers are. You say it's unworkable - why? Where does the unworkability arise? What conditions in monster/adventure/class design result in a system that can't be functional over the desired range?
I don't agree that variables have to be related in order to "allow you to tweak things". In fact it is when things are discrete independent little pieces, like powers for instance, that they are easiest to balance against each other. The very fact that the size and number of dice will interact in CS, and the costs of the various options (however exactly that works) all need to balance IN A SPECIFIC SITUATION, makes it the toughest possible type of mechanic there can be to balance. Now toss in the fact that all the various aspects, ALL OF THEM, scale. It is IMHO as someone who has done some game designs on a scale of 1 to 10 at least an 8, maybe more like a 10. This is especially tricky with a flat curve system. In a steep curve system a lot of sins are 'buried' in the progression. BA as it so far exists in 5e is a bitchy system because the relative values of different things change radically over levels. Damage for instance will change a LOT in value since it holds the entirety of the game's progression (certainly most of it).
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 11:19AM
#124
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I still don't see why someone should be forced to look at the whole list in order to decide to only use burning hands. Better to just use a class like the 3e warlock for the simple class so that the person who doesn't want to have to think about all the options, doesn't have to.
I'm sorry, but I reject the idea that we should do extra work designing things just for the "tl;dr" crowd.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 11:20AM
#125
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
The very fact that the size and number of dice will interact in CS, and the costs of the various options (however exactly that works) all need to balance IN A SPECIFIC SITUATION
Why do they need to do this?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 11:28AM
#126
|
|
|
The very fact that the size and number of dice will interact in CS, and the costs of the various options (however exactly that works) all need to balance IN A SPECIFIC SITUATION
Why do they need to do this?
because that is the point at which the player is making the choice. If one option is mostly coming up better than the others then there's a problem.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 11:29AM
#127
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I still don't see why someone should be forced to look at the whole list in order to decide to only use burning hands. Better to just use a class like the 3e warlock for the simple class so that the person who doesn't want to have to think about all the options, doesn't have to.
I'm sorry, but I reject the idea that we should do extra work designing things just for the "tl;dr" crowd.
There you go again acting like you're one of the designers. Like me, you aren't any part of the "we" that is designing this game.
Every sizable group should be taken into consideration. People looking for that sort of character class have every bit as much right to expect their concerns to be taken into consideration as you do with your concerns.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 11:42AM
#128
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
The very fact that the size and number of dice will interact in CS, and the costs of the various options (however exactly that works) all need to balance IN A SPECIFIC SITUATION
Why do they need to do this?
because that is the point at which the player is making the choice. If one option is mostly coming up better than the others then there's a problem.
Ah, but "mostly coming up better" is not the same as "coming up better in one situation."
I'll take an extreme example of a situational ability, that of Execute from the Warrior in WoW. It's a very high damage ability that you can only use when the target is below 20% health. It's the very definition of a situational ability: it can't be used most of the time, but when the time comes it's vastly more powerful than anything else. When used on a player it's a near-guaranteed kill. When used on a raid boss with several orders of magnitude more HP than a player, it's not a kill at all but it's still vastly higher than any other button you could press during that situation. And it's a great ability, and one that is actually utilized as part of the overall balance for the Warrior class. They design the Warrior with Execute in mind, and that bump they get below 20% is part of their expected damage output. Things flow, the game is happy.
Now, "mostly coming up better" is a problem. That means that something is likely to be overpowered. But situation-by-situation balancing, making sure that in a specific situation, balance is achieved for all options, and that that process is repeated for all situations, is neither necessary nor desirable. It leads to things being boring. If this were a computer game, you'd get the term "faceroll" to describe the playstyle: doesn't matter what button you push, so just hit them all and let randomness sort it out. You'll still perform the same as you would if you were playing with thought.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 11:50AM
#129
|
|
|
It seems possible to stabilize the dice progression. Start at 1d6 (instead of 1d4), and calibrate the rest of the game for this amount of damage at level 1. Then the following progression seems smooth enough.
Level: Damage = Average
1: 1d6 = 3½
2: 1d8 = 4½
3: 1d10 = 5½
4: 1d6 + 1d6 = 7
5: 1d6 + 1d8 = 8
6: 1d6 + 1d10 = 9
7: 2d6 + 1d6 = 10½
8: 2d6 + 1d8 = 11½
9: 2d6 + 1d10 = 12½
10: 3d6 + 1d6 = 14
11: 3d6 + 1d8 = 15
12: 3d6 +1d10 = 16
13: 4d6 + 1d6 = 17½
...
16: 5d6 + 1d6 = 21
...
19: 6d6 + 1d6 = 24½
20: 6d6 + 1d8 = 25½
In this way, d6s become the staple for most effects. Players can save the non-d6 for a little bit extra damage after spending some d6s to focus on their maneuver.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 10, 2012 - 11:56AM
#130
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
And that's with the goal of keeping them roughly bounded, to level + 3-to-5-ish.
If that's not the goal, you can get other things. To use an example I pulled out of thin air, based solely on evenly dividing things:
level 1: d4
level 3: d6
level 5: d8
level 7: d10
level 9: d12
level 1: 1d
level 4: 2d
level 7: 3d
level 10: 4d
level 1: 1d4 = 2.5
level 2: 1d4 = 2.5
level 3: 1d6 = 3.5
level 4: 2d6 = 7
level 5: 2d8 = 9
level 6: 2d8 = 9
level 7: 3d10 = 16.5
level 8: 3d10 = 16.5
level 9: 3d12 = 19.5
level 10: 4d12 = 26
Now, clearly we've got some issues, the progression is a little bumpy. 6->7 is particularly noteworthy. But just between changing the dice progression between Haldrik's post and mine, we've changed the power curve dramatically. That's the point I'm trying to make.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
