|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:00PM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2012
|
And, because it is a roleplaying game not a directly competitive skirmish game, balance was not the ultimate consdieration.
D&D has never been just one thing. Even at the beginning, it was a Lord of the Rings simulator, with a wargame stapled in.
Class balance does not need to be sacrificed on the altar of roleplay. These things can coexist. There is no reason, outside of tradition, that spellcasters need to live and die by daily resource management. There is nothing special about the Wizard that requires exclusively daily resources outside of it simply being the way it's always been. And that's a really silly reason to force a linear class and a quadratic class to coexist.
It was never a Lord of the Rings simulator. More of a Conan/ Fafherd simulator, with a healthy dose of midieval knightery. The LotR stuff was added (against Gary's better judgement to hear him tell it) because it was popular and people wanted it as well.
Regardless- I agree: Balance does not need to be sacrificed on the altar of roleplay. But neither does the desire for variety in class mechanics.
As for wizards - no, there is nothing about wizards which requires exclusively daily resources. But on the other hand playing a character who has to plan ahead and manage those daily resources is a legitimate play style and one that a significant number of people enjoy and want to see returned to the game.
And 'holy balance' is an equally silly reason to rule out the possibility of a linear class and a quadratic class coexisting.
Carl
It's a pretty solid reason when they have proven incompatible. If there's a way to do a daily class alongside an encounter class, we really haven't seen it yet. That doesn't mean it isn't out there, but it does mean we're going to have to think outside the box to make it work. And that makes' it highly unlikely that the form that this works in is Vancian.
It's much more likely that we're looking at something like rotating daily use slots or moving the really "magic-y" stuff to non-combat abilities rather than trying to balance spell slots with proficiency slots or whatever old-school version we're trying to cook out. The Wizard can still be very obviously and viscerally a wizard without needing to load himself like a magical shotgun every morning.
Formerly Batshido, Captain America of the 4vengers
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:02PM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
is an equally silly reason to rule out the possibility of a linear class and a quadratic class coexisting.
Carl
Utterly disagree if the caster has to be quadratic and you insist the fighter has to be linear..you are explicitly saying balance can go blank itself and you might as well write off every fan of 4e.... and hope WOTC really thinks that its worth it.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:03PM
#93
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
Ok, I'm gonna just say it: It is not possible to balance classes which use completely different mechanisms in a way that works for all situations, all the time.
Carl
I've been saying that for some time. One of the reasons I felt that 4e's unified mechanics were a godsend for the game.
It's blessing and it's curse, I agree.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:05PM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2012
|
The level of distaste you have for the imbalance = the level of distaste we feel toward homoginized class structure.
Then the assumption needs to shift from balance = homogeniety.
Things can work differently and still be balanced with each other. We just have to define the tolerances within which we want them to be "balanced". Like most distinctions of any import, this one is pretty arbitrary.
Formerly Batshido, Captain America of the 4vengers
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:07PM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Haven't read the thread, not going to, just a concise answer... Forgive me if I missed a thread regarding this question. But why do classes need to be mechanicly balanced?
Same reason any player choice needs to be balanced against other choices: to provide an actual choice. If one class is better than all others, why play anything else? If one class is inferior, why play it? (Obviously, there are reasons, like 'character concept,' but then, why punish someone for having the 'wrong' character concept?)
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:07PM
#96
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
Then the assumption needs to shift from balance = homogeniety.
Things can work differently and still be balanced with each other. We just have to define the tolerances within which we want them to be "balanced". Like most distinctions of any import, this one is pretty arbitrary.
I have always found resonance in the idea that balance was a measure of "ability to contribute," and stand by that philosophy.
As long as all classes have meaningful ways of contributing to the adventure, in a way that relatively maintains a sense of equal measure, then the game will be enjoyable for all.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:12PM
#97
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2007
|
Why did you quote me incompletely?
What I said after that first bit is more important and ignoring it does my post a major injustice.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:19PM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2012
|
The level of distaste you have for the imbalance = the level of distaste we feel toward homoginized class structure.
Then the assumption needs to shift from balance = homogeniety.
Things can work differently and still be balanced with each other. We just have to define the tolerances within which we want them to be "balanced". Like most distinctions of any import, this one is pretty arbitrary.
I have always found resonance in the idea that balance was a measure of "ability to contribute," and stand by that philosophy.
As long as all classes have meaningful ways of contributing to the adventure, in a way that relatively maintains a sense of equal measure, then the game will be enjoyable for all.
That's not a bad definition, but then you have to define a relative time frame. Do all characters need to contribute over the course of the adventure as a whole, or once per day, or once per fight? Or should they all be contributing constantly in their own ways, regardless of the circumstances?
Personally, I'd rather everyone have relatively equal but distinct things to offer both in and out of combat, and that those two arenas not be defined by one another. There's no reason a Fighter can't also cast rituals or a Wizard can't be a world-class athlete.
Formerly Batshido, Captain America of the 4vengers
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:19PM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
Why do classes need to be balanced?
It Makes it Easier to DM.
Honestly, I think that's the entire thrust of it. In an unbalanced system, the players can still play whatever they want, and they can still have fun - but, unless their expectations are somewhat specific (namely "I don't care if I get to do anything ever" would be the most extreme, with something like "I don't care if I'm never 'in the spotlight', ever" being more common), a lot of the burden of "making it fun" (or "making it work") is going to fall on the DM.
Personal experience? The imbalances of 3.5 (really, just "making every plot D&D-caster-combatible") have completely burned me out on DMing (that system). I really couldn't go back, and if that was the only "kind" of D&D that existed, it means that I would have wiped my hands of the entire game in, what? 2007?
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 12, 2012 - 2:20PM
#100
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2012
|
Why did you quote me incompletely? What I said after that first bit is more important and ignoring it does my post a major injustice.
Because that was the point I was responding directly to. I didn't want there to be confusion.
It was not my intention to give your other ideas short shrift.
Formerly Batshido, Captain America of the 4vengers
|
|
|
