Community

Dec 30, 2012 -- 8:55AM, Robin_Hoodlum wrote:

Dec 30, 2012 -- 8:50AM, Xeviat-DM wrote:

It's not about some political correctness kick that one of the original posters called out.

Can you definitively prove it isn't?

I'll wait.

Burden of Proof falacy anyone? You made the initial claim, so I'm going to ask you to bring the proof. You clame there's a pink elephant in my room; show it to me.

People want to have fun in a game. No one would play a game, let's use chess as the example again, where one person got 2 turns and the other person got nothing to compensate: that's the Fighter vs. the Wizard. The Wizard is always useful, in combat and out of combat, while the Fighter is only useful in combat. Yes, they gave the Fighter a few maneuver options that are useful for exploration, but with such few slots for learning maneuvers, I doubt you'll see them in actual play. And yes, the Fighter will shine like a star when the wizard is out of spells, but the game is currently designed for 20 combat rounds per day, so that's a situation the game isn't designed for (and at low levels, a wizard's at-wills work just fine).

Heck, the wizard doesn't even have to burn spell slots for utility ... I mean ritual magic anymore. And yes, the fighter can still use ability checks to do out of combat things, but so can the wizard.

Have I covered all my bases yet? Wanting everyone to have a level playing field, to be able to enjoy themselves in a game, isn't some political correctness agenda.

I'll stop now before politics inserts itself into this thread. 

Dec 30, 2012 -- 9:57AM, Dwarfslayer wrote:

Dec 30, 2012 -- 9:43AM, ninjazombie42 wrote:

So what about games where you rarely or almost never have combat encounters? If they should try to balance anything, shouldn`t it be a varied game, and not focus it all on combat?

It's a matter of time and how long things take. Combat takes a while. NPC interaction takes a while. Disarming a trap or following tracks does not. While it's fine to have the rest of the party wait around while the thief makes one check to disarm a trap, it's not okay to have a PC suck in every combat the party runs into. It's also not okay to have PCs be unable to participate in interacting with NPC scenes, because those can be quite lengthy as well.

Story and Genre have an influence on frequencies of various interactions and you can have those things which generally take a whle - umm not take awhile... for instance combat resolved via singular choices and one die roll (see using combat in a skill challenge in 4e - an option not well enough elaborated on in my opinion), so its not utterly one way or the other.

One of the things I have advocated was allowing actual resolutions to be of varying detail according to group interest.. even situationally that is an appropriately flexible system. Think about in a novel the author may sometimes elaborate a fight blow by blow.. and sometimes they may just give a broad summary "and they hewed there way through many orcs, finally reaching the crown of the hill".

Dec 30, 2012 -- 10:03AM, CVB wrote:

What I see here is moaning and complaining about 'Balance Fallacy'.

Balance is not about sameness.  Balance is about letting everyone at the table play.  When you have (in D&D's case) one class that can do everything after a certain level, and one class that's only effective in, what they call it?  The '3 Pillars'?  Whatever, if you have a class that's only effective at combat and nowhere else, and every other class can do at least two seperate aspects of the game...

That's not balance.  Everyone at the table should have a chance to participate in a Royal Banquet scene.  Everyone should have a chance to participate in a Gather Information scene.

It's HOW they do it that should be different.  Gather Information for a Rogue type is hitting the streets and finding out what the various guilds and other lowlifes are up to and what's happening.

Gather Information for a Cleric is checking at what the various religious institutions are doing, what's the politcal climate between them.  Even finding out which religions are allowed can tell you a lot.

Gather Information for a Mage is more complex, libraries or other institutions of learning are useful for this, but it'll be more likely to be esoteric and more focused on the arcane or secrets.

Gather Information for a Fighter type is likely to deal with Nobility, City Watch/Guard or Army.  Finding out what the laws are like, what sort of problems are likely to occur.  Even knowing which symbols that the guards wear is enough to get a picture of what the city will be like.

But that's everyone being allowed to do something at the table.

I havent agreed with you this much ever....I am wowed.

Dec 30, 2012 -- 11:28AM, Jenks wrote:

I think the issue with combat balance has more come from the way D&D has evolved. As the game has become more and more encounter based, and less overall arch based, the need for people to be useful in individual encounters has gone up. 

2e defined encounters as central to D&D ... we can get out the quotes.... but I am wondering when you think this transformation occured?