|
12 months ago ::
Jun 25, 2012 - 5:19PM
#131
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Note I said sedated, She's probably on a metric ton of caffeine.
I know game style can vary beween tables, again I'm not saying every feat has to be balanced in every situation for every build.
I'm saying that Skill focus and toughnees don't have to suck.
Even in a 3e diplomancer game that +2 diplomacy from skill focus was pretty much an afterthought I'd wager, compared to the buffs from spells or magic items.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 25, 2012 - 5:30PM
#132
|
Date Joined:
Dec 29, 2007
|
Note I said sedated, She's probably on a metric ton of caffeine.
I know game style can vary beween tables, again I'm not saying every feat has to be balanced in every situation for every build.
I'm saying that Skill focus and toughnees don't have to suck.
Even in a 3e diplomancer game that +2 diplomacy from skill focus was pretty much an afterthought I'd wager, compared to the buffs from spells or magic items.
Sure, and I agree with all that. I'm really arguing from a broader perspective than just specific feats. Buff spells and magic item bonuses are a whole other kettle of fish I'd rather not get into.
I'd much rather feats did something more than just provide numerical bonuses, and at least an attempt was made to keep them relevent over time.
Assuming WotC do that though, I can almost guarantee we could fast-forward a few years and find someone arguing the same principle as we're doing right now. The details will be different of course, but some feats simply won't stack up to others at someones table and they will complain about it.
Being one of the designers must be a pretty thankless task. It doesn't mean they should stop trying, but they've got an impossible task ahead of them.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 25, 2012 - 5:35PM
#133
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Maybe so, maybe you can't get every feat just right, maybe people in the future will have the same problem, but that doesn't mean they should have the same problem on the same scale. Better to start trying to make it work better now.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 25, 2012 - 5:52PM
#134
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2011
|
Of course min maxing will always happen, I'll do it even if no one else does.
I'm saying that the difference between a min-maxed character and a non-optomized character doesn't have to be the difference between galactus and a sedated squirrel.
This is true. 
And I'm not saying it should be. I just want there to be a level of balance that lies somewhere about halfway between 3e and 4e. 4e went too far for me.
Just making sure: if balance didn't give up any uniqueness or options or what-have-you, you would love it, amiright?
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ … s_Handbook An attempt at CharOp To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
Show
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales." "see sig" redirects here
Show
Oblivious troll is Oblivious PbP supporter! General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Show
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important.
There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level.
Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition. You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 25, 2012 - 5:59PM
#135
|
Date Joined:
Nov 24, 2009
|
I believe theres a virtue to actually learning the game mechanics. If everything is the same regardless of choice.....then there really isn't a choice...theres simply the illusion of choice. Choice quite often manifests itself in ways that make some choices good some bad, some of the bad ones good if coupled with another strategic choice etc on and on (obviously "system mastery" but it never means you have to be a master to play). Really if a game system is made where there are some choices that aren't so appealing....that should never stop the player from choosing that choice then developing it further with add-ons through study/practice that make that "supposed poor choice" a very unique trait that proves to be very advantageous in some scenarios.
If you really are just trying to equalize everyone's damage output then the spells become vastly generic and so do the wpn pro's/feat/powers that the martial classes would get. Theres no such thing about developing a "fair" playing field for all classes in regards to all classes....there is some capacity to make the character classes/races not overwhelmingly powerful in regards to the gameplay itself though. Often times if the capacity at which one can perform with their character is simply limited to the written words on the paper then by all means the very capacity of the roleplayer themself is then crippled.....it just wouldn't mean anything to have played D&D for 20+ years since that experience garners no extra benefits since the limitation is simply as written on the character sheet.
So in essence this creates a double edged sword....if you want the characters to be equal in footing regardless of choice.....then there is only the illusion of choice (things become very "same-like" with different decriptive fluff words).....but if you want the choices to be good/bad (make sure to have a system that allows one to create/modify existing choices then the bad ones won't really be all that bad) then it remains that some capacity of the player themself is actually interacting with the game at a level where things do not always rely on dice rolls but DO rely on actual choice.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 25, 2012 - 6:00PM
#136
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
Toughness is presented as equal to great fortitude,
No it isn't.
You may have assumed that they were somehow supposed to be "equal", but it doesn't say that in the 3E book.
Cost - Value analysis.. what is the price of one... a feat choice.. what is the price of the other a feat choice. They are presented with equal price why arent they equal value?
Because it is not a supermarket.
Non-sense statement
You suggested that you want things of equal price to be of equal vaue, which is just like buying things at a supermarket. But we are playing a game where every feat is necessarily different, not the exact same like they are gallons of milk.
It made perfect sense, but maybe you just got your quotes mixed up???
What, so some non-core class allows the kind of optimization than can wreak havok in your campaign? So then why are you including it in your campaign?
Or they could, and try to keep up with me here, BALANCE IT SO I DON'T HAVE TO BAN IT.
Some mindblowing ideas in this thread.
Yeah sure, because we are advocating to keep wildly imbalanced classes in the game for 5E.
Oh wait, no we aren't.
Mindblowing indeed.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER.
Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 25, 2012 - 6:11PM
#137
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
What, so some non-core class allows the kind of optimization than can wreak havok in your campaign? So then why are you including it in your campaign?
Or they could, and try to keep up with me here, BALANCE IT SO I DON'T HAVE TO BAN IT.
Some mindblowing ideas in this thread.
Yeah sure, because we are advocating to keep wildly imbalanced classes in the game for 5E.
Oh wait, no we aren't.
Mindblowing indeed.
Then why do you throw a fit whenever someone wants something to be balanced, then tell them to just ban it?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 25, 2012 - 6:14PM
#138
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
What, so some non-core class allows the kind of optimization than can wreak havok in your campaign? So then why are you including it in your campaign?
Or they could, and try to keep up with me here, BALANCE IT SO I DON'T HAVE TO BAN IT.
Some mindblowing ideas in this thread.
Yeah sure, because we are advocating to keep wildly imbalanced classes in the game for 5E.
Oh wait, no we aren't.
Mindblowing indeed.
Then why do you throw a fit whenever someone wants something to be balanced, then tell them to just ban it?
You must have me confused with someone else.
Someone threw a fit about one of my recent posts, and I answered them without yelling back at them.
Also, I've explained that I have no problem with the designers trying to prevent optimizers from running amok, but that's not the same as taking away all of the "sub-optimal" flavor feat choices just to protect the unwary from taking them.
(In fact, I should just copy and save that last sentence, because I have to keep explaining it over... and over.... and over.....)
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER.
Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 25, 2012 - 6:18PM
#139
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2004
|
Nothing about the Artificer's thematic elements are imblanced or game breaking, it's how the class is constructed mechanicaly that's an issue. Why would throwing out a whole class that many player's enjoy using be a better option than fixing it?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 25, 2012 - 6:26PM
#140
|
|
|
Nothing about the Artificer's thematic elements are imblanced or game breaking, it's how the class is constructed mechanicaly that's an issue. Why would throwing out a whole class that many player's enjoy using be a better option than fixing it?
I think you (or maybe me!) are confusing class and feat balance. I -think- they're still talking about feats, not classes.
|
|
|
