|
4 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2009 - 11:19AM
#31
|
|
|
Some people have somehow worked into their minds that balance eliminates creativity... or difference... or something. I don't even know. They think that the only acceptable balanced system is where everyone is the exact same thing.
Well, some of those players believe the current edition has sacrificed options for the sake of balance. For example:
You cannot make a class/character that uses a vancian magic system in 4e, because the designers believed that it was unbalanced when compared to the other classes.
You cannot make a class that has access many more powers but sacrifices something else in exchange for this, this option does not exist because of balance (hence why all classes have the same amount of powers in 4e) except for the wizard who has a little bit more access, but not a signifigant amount.
You cannot have a simple class for people who do not want to customize like the old fighter, who had very little options, attack, charge ect. You can't do this because all classes need to be balanced, so they all need the same amount of powers. This means every player in D&D will always need 3-4 sheets of character information at mid level. Everyone has to have many many combat options.
You can't make an illusionist that will be completely weak in many situations (e.g. golems, undead ect) but very powerful in others (e.g. the city), you can't do this because one of the balance goal is to have all classes relatively equal in strength in combat. Your illusionist will end up having many combat related powers.
You can't have a class that is very weak for its first 10 levels, in exchange for it being very strong at later levels, you cant do this because of balance.
Conversely you can't have a class that is strong at first, but relatively weak towards the end of its career, because it would be unbalanced.
You cannot have a class, that is so mystical and strange that its progression and internal mechanics work completely different then another class, you can't do this because it would be hard to balance that class with the others.
So yeah, its natural that some people will look at the things they can no longer do, and then think, well I had fun in an unbalanced system... maybe balance isn't the be all and end all.
Other people like the balance. Its all preference. But when people say silly things like you can't have fun in an unbalanced system, it shows a level of ignorance that is stunning. 1e and 2e were signifigantly unbalanced, were people just pretending to have fun?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2009 - 11:21AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2007
|
But I don't know a single game that does this. I do know lots of games that are balanced, however. Not everything has to work, but more than 50% should work. Also, unbalanced =/= more creativity. I feel equally creative in 4e as 3e and I would say there's a huge difference in balance. Likewise, I'm not sure that Rifts gives you more creativity (save from just sheer volume of material) than 3e but there is a measurable difference in balance between those two.
I just reject the notion that balance and options are mutually exclusive. However, we should probably not derail the thread into this discussion, since I think it's been done before.
I don't want to imply that unbalance leads to more creativity. The very opposite typically is true. In very unbalanced games (especially competitive ones), the top options become the only chosen ones.
It is the idea if there are vastly different options (fuctionality and numerically), then a game will TEND to be less balanced.
4th edition follows a very uniform structuring. Classes and powers are written in a very uniform way. This is to promote balance.
I believe that people are not complaining about balance, but the uniformity. Why can't my wizard manage different resources than my rogue?
The answer is clearly for balance, which they see as detracting from the variety (probably a better word than creativity) of the game.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2009 - 11:33AM
#33
|
|
|
The popular board game Talisman has always been unbalanced. At start up you get a random character (theif, rogue, sorceress, wizard ect) The sorceress is one of the best characters, there are really bad characters, really good characters and plenty of in the middle characters.
Still a fun game.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2009 - 11:41AM
#34
|
|
|
You cannot make a class/character that uses a vancian magic system in 4e, because the designers believed that it was unbalanced when compared to the other classes.
You can't use a daily/encounter/at-will system in 3x
You cannot make a class that has access many more powers but sacrifices something else in exchange for this, this option does not exist because of balance (hence why all classes have the same amount of powers in 4e) except for the wizard who has a little bit more access, but not a signifigant amount.
I can't play a fighter that has abilities on par with spells (at least until the end of the 3e run and we're at the beginning of the 4e run).
You cannot have a simple class for people who do not want to customize like the old fighter, who had very little options, attack, charge ect. You can't do this because all classes need to be balanced, so they all need the same amount of powers. This means every player in D&D will always need 3-4 sheets of character information at mid level. Everyone has to have many many combat options.
Really? People liked playing a boring fighter that just did an attack every round for 20 levels and continued to play said fighter without ever getting feats that allowed more options or increased things like bull rushing, leap attacks, whirlwinds etc...
I call shenanigans.
You can't make an illusionist that will be completely weak in many situations (e.g. golems, undead ect) but very powerful in others (e.g. the city), you can't do this because one of the balance goal is to have all classes relatively equal in strength in combat. Your illusionist will end up having many combat related powers.
You can't have a class that is very weak for its first 10 levels, in exchange for it being very strong at later levels, you cant do this because of balance.
Conversely you can't have a class that is strong at first, but relatively weak towards the end of its career, because it would be unbalanced.
...
I'm sure you made this in all seriousness, but I'm having a hard buying these complaints. You're asking for classes that are useless and saying that it's... what... better? to have these options?
And you imply that you can't have fun unless the system was unbalanced?
Shenanigans.
I don't want to imply that unbalance leads to more creativity. The very opposite typically is true. In very unbalanced games (especially competitive ones), the top options become the only chosen ones.
It is the idea if there are vastly different options (fuctionality and numerically), then a game will TEND to be less balanced.
4th edition follows a very uniform structuring. Classes and powers are written in a very uniform way. This is to promote balance.
I believe that people are not complaining about balance, but the uniformity. Why can't my wizard manage different resources than my rogue?
The answer is clearly for balance, which they see as detracting from the variety (probably a better word than creativity) of the game.
Well, I think some of the uniformity arises because we're also dealing with... what? 5 4e books? If we use the PHBII or the Powers as a sign of where things are going, there is going to be different 'resource' management. We didn't get the Warlock on release in 3e, we won't have all the different classes in 4e.
Just as a few examples - Vestige Pack Warlocks have an at-will that changes depending on the daily that has been used. Wild Magic Sorcerer has effects based on the die roll used at that moment. Bravura Warlord grants CA and bonuses to enemies in order to grant bonuses to allies.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2009 - 11:47AM
#35
|
|
|
The popular board game Talisman has always been unbalanced. At start up you get a random character (theif, rogue, sorceress, wizard ect) The sorceress is one of the best characters, there are really bad characters, really good characters and plenty of in the middle characters.
Still a fun game.
Diplomacy - incredibly balanced game (though you can't tell by looking at it as all seven countries have very different starts) and enormously fun.
Star Craft - incredibly balanced game, very different between the races and still a fun game.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2009 - 11:53AM
#36
|
|
|
You can't use a daily/encounter/at-will system in 3x
Are you serious? What would have been the problem with doing this in 3e? There were many many classes with different subrules and this would have been a viable option. The warlock had at wills and dailies (no encounters because this concept didnt exist in 3e, it was usually 3 times a day). So yeah, there were classes that could do things daily, at will and 3 times a day.
I can't play a fighter that has abilities on par with spells (at least until the end of the 3e run and we're at the beginning of the 4e run).
I don't get what this means? There were fighter/mage classes in 3e.
Really? People liked playing a boring fighter that just did an attack every round for 20 levels and continued to play said fighter without ever getting feats that allowed more options or increased things like bull rushing, leap attacks, whirlwinds etc...
Yes, many people played "boring fighters" in 3e. Many people who weren't really into D&D (just a way to hang with friends) liked the simple class where they could just easily level and roleplay and attack. The whole stand and attack thing was a criticism of 3e fighters. So obviously some people played this way. I had a fighter my last campaign that only took "toughness" because he didn't want to learn the rules for wrestling and all the other options for example.
And you imply that you can't have fun unless the system was unbalanced?
No. I am implying that for some people it is more fun to play in a system with different subrules. Mages work like this. Fighters work like this. Sorcerers work like this. Clerics work differently to. ect ect Of course I want the subrules to be as balanced as possible. But making all class follow the same subrules/progression removes some of the variety.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2009 - 11:54AM
#37
|
|
|
I feel equally creative in 4e as 3e and I would say there's a huge difference in balance.
The sort of creativity being discussed earlier was designer creativity, not player creativity. In a game where balance isn't much of a concern, ideas which aren't balanced can still be included.
That isn't necessarily a good thing, of course.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2009 - 11:55AM
#38
|
|
|
Diplomacy - incredibly balanced game (though you can't tell by looking at it as all seven countries have very different starts) and enormously fun.
Star Craft - incredibly balanced game, very different between the races and still a fun game.
Who was saying balanced games can't be fun? I am not.
Actually I always thought the StarCraft races were unbalanced. Terran seem to be overly popular online, just like wizards were popular in Living Greyhawk.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2009 - 11:59AM
#39
|
|
|
(no encounters because this concept didnt exist in 3e, it was usually 3 times a day).
Please read the Barbarian's rules for Rage. Encounter limitations were hard-wired into the system from the first PHB. 4e didn't come up with anything new here.
No. I am implying that for some people it is more fun to play in a system with different subrules. Mages work like this. Fighters work like this. Sorcerers work like this. Clerics work differently to. ect ect Of course I want the subrules to be as balanced as possible. But making all class follow the same subrules/progression removes some of the variety.
Mechanical variety does not create playability variety. Prep-Mages, Spon-Mages, and Mundanes are the three styles of variety that was present in 3e. There were a few hybrids, and even the Mundanes had a few "powerful" tricks they could accomplish. But that didn't make the play-styles of the character sheets diverse, Just the math-keeping.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2009 - 12:01PM
#40
|
|
|
Are you serious? What would have been the problem with doing this in 3e? There were many many classes with different subrules and this would have been a viable option. The warlock had at wills and dailies (no encounters because this concept didnt exist in 3e, it was usually 3 times a day). So yeah, there were classes that could do things daily, at will and 3 times a day.
If we're going to play the 'close enough' game, you can argue that 4e gives a 'close enough' system for Vancian casting. Your dailies are your top level spells, the ones you can prepare three times. Encounter powers? Mid-level spells that you have multiples memorized. Dailies are your cantrips and low level abilities that you have to prepare for every 20 levels.
You cannot make a class that has access many more powers but sacrifices something else in exchange for this, this option does not exist because of balance (hence why all classes have the same amount of powers in 4e) except for the wizard who has a little bit more access, but not a signifigant amount.
I don't get what this means? There were fighter/mage classes in 3e.
We have multiclassing in 4e too.
Yes, many people played "boring fighters" in 3e. Many people who weren't really into D&D (just a way to hang with friends) liked the simple class where they could just easily level and roleplay and attack. The whole stand and attack thing was a criticism of 3e.
If that floats their boat, why not play a ranger and use basic range attack the whole game. I still can't believe that someone would spend more than a year playing a game where they just did a standard attack every... single... round.
No. I am implying that for some people it is more fun to play in a system with different subrules. Mages work like this. Fighters work like this. Sorcerers work like this. Clerics work differently to. ect ect Of course I want the subrules to be as balanced as possible. But making all class follow the same subrules/progression removes some of the variety.
Fighters have marking, wizards have zones. The different 'roles' play different and have different rules. I don't see the problem. They've imbedded the subsystems so they aren't so incredibly jarring/confusing/jumbled and have made them easier for the DM who, ultimately, needs to juggle every single one.
|
|
|
