|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 6:15AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
@theMormegil
I agree we all play what we want. I think the difference for me is that I'd rather have a fun game that I have to be cautious with as a DM than an easy to DM game that is less fun. Obviously having both would be nice so I hope.
Nay, the difference is that for you 3.X was fun. To me, it is no longer fun. It was, back when I had absolutely no alternative. Today, I have 4E, and that is way more fun for me. I also believe an unbalanced system won't, no matter how awesome, give me as much fun as 4E can.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 6:30AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
@theMormegil
I agree we all play what we want. I think the difference for me is that I'd rather have a fun game that I have to be cautious with as a DM than an easy to DM game that is less fun. Obviously having both would be nice so I hope.
Nay, the difference is that for you 3.X was fun. To me, it is no longer fun. It was, back when I had absolutely no alternative. Today, I have 4E, and that is way more fun for me. I also believe an unbalanced system won't, no matter how awesome, give me as much fun as 4E can.
I think your whole paragraph was true except for the Nay part. I never doubted that 4e was more fun for you. I as just saying for me of course. I pick the funner game as I assume you do. That doesn't mean we pick the same game since different things are important to us.
On another note, I think that 5e can't possibly be as balanced as 4e. It is no question easier to achieve perfect balance with a single at-will, encounter, daily mechanic for all classes. I do think 5e will be a TON more balanced than 3e though. So that will be the question for a lot of 4e people. Is 5e balanced enough so that other factors have an influence on their choice. For me while balance is not king in my priorities it is still important, I think 5e will definitely be an improvement over both 4e and 3e.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 7:38AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2007
|
On another note, I think that 5e can't possibly be as balanced as 4e. It is no question easier to achieve perfect balance with a single at-will, encounter, daily mechanic for all classes. I do think 5e will be a TON more balanced than 3e though. So that will be the question for a lot of 4e people. Is 5e balanced enough so that other factors have an influence on their choice. For me while balance is not king in my priorities it is still important, I think 5e will definitely be an improvement over both 4e and 3e.
It might be possible to come close though. If you build non-AEDU classes so that, under the hood, they are AEDU classes, then it might work. We've seen this with psionics and essentials, which came close to being balanced. Off hand, you can get rid of At wills by replacing them with encounter stances that modify the basic attacks. (These classes will have stronger basic attacks than some classes. You get more flexibility in "at-wills" because you may have more stances, but you might not be able to change stances that often, or bounce back from one to another.) You can get rid of Encounter powers by replacing them with stances, or using power-points ala the non-monk psionic classes to augment at wills. (For martial classes these can be adrenal surges, or whatever, for arcane they can be mana, for divine they can be grace, whatever.) You can get rid of dailies by either allow further augmentation (say, 1, 2, and 4) as for the Encounter powers, or use something that almost looks like action points, so that you can spend multiple in a combat. Two encounter powers in the same round (especially if one inflicts a condition that another can exploit), or the same one twice, is probably similar in power to a daily. Another possibility is to use the trick from the psionic classes with stamina points (or mana points, or whatever) to augment encounter powers. Utilities can probably be replaced with bonus feats, although I don't know how to nerf the daily ones. (For example, the various skill utility powers that allow you to substitute a skill roll for initiative once a day are too powerful to be allowed each encounter, and too weak if made conditional based on terrain type, die roll etc.)
I can see two problems with the above off hand:
1. You can't get rid of both encounter and dailies easily, and it could get confusing if you had two types of augmentation points.
2. There may be confusion with having augmentable powers for a class which can't augment them. For example, if arcane encounter spells were common between the Wzard (Vancian) and the Mage (non-Vancian). The powers should have augmentations listed for the Mage, but a player running a Wizard wouldn't be able to use them.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 7:54AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2001
|
It might be possible to come close though. If you build non-AEDU classes so that, under the hood, they are AEDU classes, then it might work. We've seen this with psionics and essentials, which came close to being balanced.
Doing that will defy the purpose of D&D Next -- just giving 4e some makeup it's what was done in Essentials, and it didn't really work: many 4e players did not like Essentials, and not enough non-4e players liked it enough to move to it from Pathfinder or whatever they're playing now.
GP
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 8:07AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
By 'lucky few' you mean the millions upon millions of players that discovered and LOVED D&D in all it's early 30 year glory? The ones that, together with this 'broken game', launched an ENTIRE genre of gaming and entertainment which has become THE iconic trend of an era?
This, right here? This needs to stop. Just because I and people like me had problems with older editions of D&D doesn't mean we don't love D&D, too. I started on 1e and played for years before 4e ever hit shelves. I experienced pretty much all of the common complaints. 5MWD. Busted balance(been on both sides of it, too). Hacked on subsystems. But you know what? We love D&D anyway, and we want it to be the best it can be.
So can we please stop with the insinuating that if you find any flaw in D&D at all, then you must not be a True Believer?
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 8:26AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2007
|
By 'lucky few' you mean the millions upon millions of players that discovered and LOVED D&D in all it's early 30 year glory? The ones that, together with this 'broken game', launched an ENTIRE genre of gaming and entertainment which has become THE iconic trend of an era?
This, right here? This needs to stop. Just because I and people like me had problems with older editions of D&D doesn't mean we don't love D&D, too. I started on 1e and played for years before 4e ever hit shelves. I experienced pretty much all of the common complaints. 5MWD. Busted balance(been on both sides of it, too). Hacked on subsystems. But you know what? We love D&D anyway, and we want it to be the best it can be.
So can we please stop with the insinuating that if you find any flaw in D&D at all, then you must not be a True Believer?
I dont think he was trying to insiuate that dnd had no flaws. When I read that I got that he was trying to point out that when people say that when people say he is in the minority for not experiencing the 15min workday problem is baseless since we dont really have proper numbers on either side.
Also my personal opinion is DND is always broken and will always be broken. Its impossible to balance a game that is so open ended. So dnd will always require a certain level of maturity from its players (*note Maturity not age. so please dont spin this as me saying the younglings dont know whats going on). This maturity comes into play when the DM and players need to realize that they need to work together to create a fun experience for everyone. Keeping that mentality in mind at all times will go much farther to dealing with these problems than any balance or rule 0ing can ever do.
Edit: thats not to say we shouldnt keep refining rules
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 8:50AM
#57
|
|
|
It's amusing how the same topics keep showing up no matter what the name of the thread is  . There are very different degrees of "unbalanced systems". Even in 4th edition, all classes aren't balanced (1). The unbalanced you don't want is the "oh my god, this is rediculous, my character sucks" kind. I'm confident that whenever someone from the older editions says that all classes shouldn't be balanced, you have to read in between the lines and read "not like in pre Essentials 4th edition". In other words, different mechanics for different classes. Not all classes using the same power system. If the price to pay for having different classes using different mechanics like in D&D Essentials is that some classes will be slightly better than others in certain situations, then it's a price we're willing to pay. Some classes will be better in a 10 fighter per day situation, others will be better in a 1 fighter per day situation. The key is in the slightly. It's going to require some fine tuning, and I hope that the game designers learned from D&D Essentials. A few misconceptions about pre 4th edition players:
- We don't want D&D to be a ruleless game like it was before 3rd edition. If that works for your group get rid of the rules, but let us have some rules.
- We don't want some classes to be godlike and others to be pathetic.
- We don't want some classes to be fun and others to be boring(2).
- We don't want any "I win" buttons for any class because they're not fun for anyone.
- Most of us don't want complicated rules (3rd edition grapple... yuck)
Why would anyone want to get back to 3rd edition brokeness? You guys have to stop worrying, we don't want broken, we just want varied because we strongly believe that this variety is fun.
(1) I keep reading that not all classes are equally good at their role. People always mention for instance that the ranger is superior to the rogue. I don't have enough 4th edition experience to comment on this.
(2) Actually we do want some classes to be "boring". Classes should have varied difficulty levels to appeal to different publics. That doesn't mean we want melees to be easy and casters to be hard. I would personally like both the pew pew type caster (warmage) and a good old tactical fighter (4th edition style). I very strongly believe that whether to play a simple or complex class should be the player's prerogative.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 8:52AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Re: (1)
Yes, there are still balance issues in 4e, but they're dramatically smaller - both in magnitude in the numbers and in the scope of the differences in character capabilities.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 8:54AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
It's amusing how the same topics keep showing up no matter what the name of the thread is .
There are very different degrees of "unbalanced systems". Even in 4th edition, all classes aren't balanced(1). The unbalanced you don't want is the "oh my god, this is rediculous, my character sucks" kind.
I'm confident that whenever someone from the older editions says that all classes shouldn't be balanced, you have to read in between the lines and read "not like in pre Essentials 4th edition". In other words, different mechanics for different classes. Not all classes using the same power system. If the price to pay for having different classes using different mechanics like in D&D Essentials is that some classes will be slightly better than others in certain situations, then it's a price we're willing to pay. Some classes will be better in a 10 fighter per day situation, others will be better in a 1 fighter per day situation. The key is in the slightly. It's going to require some fine tuning, and I hope that the game designers learned from D&D Essentials.
A few misconceptions about pre 4th edition players:
- We don't want D&D to be a ruleless game like it was before 3rd edition. If that works for your group get rid of the rules, but let us have some rules.
- We don't want some classes to be godlike and others to be pathetic.
- We don't want some classes to be fun and others to be boring(2).
- We don't want any "I win" buttons for any class because they're not fun for anyone.
- Most of us don't want complicated rules (3rd edition grapple... yuck)
Why would anyone want to get back to 3rd edition brokeness? You guys have to stop worrying, we don't want broken, we just want varied because we strongly believe that this variety is fun.
(1) I keep reading that not all classes are equally good at their role. People always mention for instance that the ranger is superior to the rogue. I don't have enough 4th edition experience to comment on this.
(2) Actually we do want some classes to be "boring". Classes should have varied difficulty levels to appeal to different publics. That doesn't mean we want melees to be easy and casters to be hard. I would personally like both the pew pew type caster (warmage) and a good old tactical fighter (4th edition style). I very strongly believe that whether to play a simple or complex class should be the player's prerogative.
+1 QFT
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 28, 2012 - 8:56AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Why would anyone want to get back to 3rd edition brokeness? You guys have to stop worrying, we don't want broken, we just want varied because we strongly believe that this variety is fun.
Eh, I wonder. Some of the comments I see on these boards seem to be way on the other side of the business (e.g. "I want the broken spells back" is pretty common, as is "fighter was balanced give me the 3.5 fighter and wizard back").
You are remarkably open to 4E stuff, but it is not that common I'm afraid.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
