|
12 months ago ::
Jun 07, 2012 - 3:53PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
Lawrence has a point, there were some mechanisms to keep wizards constrained. As much as their explosive power might have existed, they were burning gold and time trying to find, learn, and cast these new spells that were used by the fighter to buy a castle and stock it. Especially with bounded accuracy, a regiment of well trained archers can be quite a powerful boon.
We have no idea what high level casting will entail with the current rules, however. This is what needs to be remembered. They may be balanced by a physical cost, or (mechanically an inferior method imo) with fiscal and temporal costs.
To be directly competitive on a mechanical level, the high level fighter will need more to do. There should be an evolution of the fighter, with levels 1-10 feeling like dark souls, 11-20 being assassin's creed, and 21+ being Kratos. If you want the fighter to remain "realistic" at high level, there is no way to do this without him becoming superhuman. If we assume high levels include a degree of deific power, then it's feasible.
As is, though, any cries of high levels being broken are absurd. We've seen up to level 3.
Chill, and we'll see what it looks like when we playtest it.
'That's just, like, your opinion, man.'
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 2:41PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2003
|
When I use the argument "Not all groups get to play at those levels" its usually not to excuse the "Phenominal Cosmic Power" as not important, but rather to highlight the fact that you can't balance low levels with what might come at high levels.
Levels need to roughly balance out from level to lever between races and classes, because you never know if your going to make it through to 5th or 8th or 12th or whatever level before a group grows apart, no longer has time, a new edition comes out, changes games, whatever...
As people get older, demands on their times change, they move away, new people join, so although there are long running campaigns out there that may make it into the Epic levels 20+, you can't use those epic levels to justify the power differential at lower levels.
Also, as the OP pointed out, the epic levels need to also contain the balance and playability of the lower levels, for those who do make it that far and stay together and on one campaign that long, or shoot, for those who want to do a campaign that starts at those higher levels (I rarely do such, unless its a demo at a Con)
Balance is a cornerstone concept of the game, because it has to be equally as fulfilling and enjoyable to everyone who participated in the passtime.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 3:00PM
#53
|
|
|
Quite the contrary. A flaw you never suffer is not a flaw worth fixing.
Ah, no.
If a game is made with the promise of 30 levels of fun gameplay, I expect it to function properly for 30 levels, not work shakily until level 12 and then it completely falls apart. I'm not paying money for what amounts to half a game.
So you deem superior a system that falls apart right away?
I stopped reading here and won't read further anytime you put words in my mouth.
Show me where I said a better system is one that falls apart right away.
Right where you reject a game that falls apart later.
Now you quite possibly have in mind some dream of improving all levels of the game, but you have centered on improving epic, and we have only limited resources. Improvements to epic mean there is less left to improve other parts of the game. So when you talk about a system that is shakey until level 12 and then falls apart entirely, the alternative is not a system that works perfectly all the way to 30. It is a system that falls apart right away.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 4:25PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
Quite the contrary. A flaw you never suffer is not a flaw worth fixing.
Ah, no.
If a game is made with the promise of 30 levels of fun gameplay, I expect it to function properly for 30 levels, not work shakily until level 12 and then it completely falls apart. I'm not paying money for what amounts to half a game.
So you deem superior a system that falls apart right away?
I stopped reading here and won't read further anytime you put words in my mouth.
Show me where I said a better system is one that falls apart right away.
Right where you reject a game that falls apart later.
Now you quite possibly have in mind some dream of improving all levels of the game, but you have centered on improving epic, and we have only limited resources. Improvements to epic mean there is less left to improve other parts of the game. So when you talk about a system that is shakey until level 12 and then falls apart entirely, the alternative is not a system that works perfectly all the way to 30. It is a system that falls apart right away.
Please read my post.
I said I want a game that functions at all levels, not just the firts half then falls apart.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 5:14PM
#55
|
|
|
Quite the contrary. A flaw you never suffer is not a flaw worth fixing.
Ah, no.
If a game is made with the promise of 30 levels of fun gameplay, I expect it to function properly for 30 levels, not work shakily until level 12 and then it completely falls apart. I'm not paying money for what amounts to half a game.
So you deem superior a system that falls apart right away?
I stopped reading here and won't read further anytime you put words in my mouth.
Show me where I said a better system is one that falls apart right away.
Right where you reject a game that falls apart later.
Now you quite possibly have in mind some dream of improving all levels of the game, but you have centered on improving epic, and we have only limited resources. Improvements to epic mean there is less left to improve other parts of the game. So when you talk about a system that is shakey until level 12 and then falls apart entirely, the alternative is not a system that works perfectly all the way to 30. It is a system that falls apart right away.
Please read my post.
I said I want a game that functions at all levels, not just the firts half then falls apart.
(content removed) You are wanting something for nothing, and won't get it either. You move effort away from improving the low level game and the result will be an inferior low level game. The alternatives you have are a game that falls apart at high levels or one that falls apart earlier. The perfect game is a dream, not an option.
Moderated by
Orc_Jubjub
on Jun 08, 2012 - 06:28PM
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 5:40PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
Please actually read my posts and stop arguing against what you assume I'm saying.
I want a game that works at all levels, not one that falls apart ocne you get past level 12. They need to put attention to every level, not just the first couple. This is not some outrageous demand, this is what they should be doing as designers, which is their job. If they do not do their job, they can't expect me to pay money for it.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 5:58PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Please actually read my posts and stop arguing against what you assume I'm saying.
I want a game that works at all levels, not one that falls apart ocne you get past level 12. They need to put attention to every level, not just the first couple. This is not some outrageous demand, this is what they should be doing as designers, which is their job. If they do not do their job, they can't expect me to pay money for it.
Nonsense. They should charge us for an incomplete game. I'd much rather spend my hard earned money on lazy design. It is much better for them to give us 5 solid levels and then tell us to fix the rest. 
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 6:05PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
May 20, 2005
|
You move effort away from improving the low level game and the result will be an inferior low level game. The alternatives you have are a game that falls apart at high levels or one that falls apart earlier. The perfect game is a dream, not an option.
It sounds like you're making the argument that D&D is going to fall apart and nothing can prevent it. Is this your argument? That attempting to balance high-level play somehow means the game can't hold it together until then? That there is a finite quantity of "not sucking" and all we can do is choose what 8-level spread to use it on?
Why would anyone play that game? That sounds like a terrible game.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 6:08PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
You move effort away from improving the low level game and the result will be an inferior low level game. The alternatives you have are a game that falls apart at high levels or one that falls apart earlier. The perfect game is a dream, not an option.
It sounds like you're making the argument that D&D is going to fall apart and nothing can prevent it. Is this your argument? That attempting to balance high-level play somehow means the game can't hold it together until then? That there is a finite quantity of "not sucking" and all we can do is choose what 8-level spread to use it on?
Why would anyone play that game? That sounds like a terrible game.
I played that game before. I would never do it again.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 6:29PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2012
|
Content has been removed due to violations of section 2, Inappropriate Content of the Code of Conduct. Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
|
|
|
