|
10 months ago ::
Aug 24, 2012 - 5:58PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2002
|
If you listen to anything the devs have said about PC balance, they have said that they are working towards creating it as much as they can, while still maintaining class uniqueness. What *I* said was, therefore, I would be satisfied with "slight imbalance" if that meant preserving flavor. In other words, I prefer novelty over sameness when it comes to erring on one side or the other of balance.
And I never said we should copy 4e. I just cited it as being balanced, and that the current system for D&D Next is not balanced, and takes us back to the problems before 4e. Again that doesn't mean I want 4e. Although the mischaracterization assertion stands.
There is room for adding skills and powers for Fighters or melee without just making it a carbon copy. But that hasn't happened, and there needs to be some serious thought to refreshing how melee works to make it more balanced and interesting. Right now I'm not see that.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 24, 2012 - 10:46PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2008
|
4e had the fighter in the defender role, which really reduced the offensive output. The fighters felt like they were back in their own skin now, and the latest playtest gives them some nice options. I would also like to see a system that allowed more imagination, such as "you can try that special maneuver you just thought of" with a mechanic that allowed it, such as doing it at a disadvantage if you're untrained.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 25, 2012 - 12:23AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
Improvisation is what we are play testing in this this iteration. So why not use it.
Then why do casters get huge specialized sections of the book all to themselves, filled with specific, concise rules?
Because building a balanced magic system that focuses on improvisation creates a completely different game. If someone wants that, they can play with the white-wolf system for magic.
It's VERY difficult to pull that off for magic and keep it balanced with fighters and rogues. Hell, it's hard enough to balance with the vancian spell system.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 25, 2012 - 12:58PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
I think one problem is that a level one in 4the Ed got so much to do rigTT off the bat. 2-3 at wills, an encounter, and a daily, plus the marking mechanic with bonus to Aoo and stoping movement. Throw in the ability to action point and takew reaction powers, and you have alot going on at first level. Now, at level one, it's parry/extra damage/one other ability, and you can only activate one a turn. However, at higher level, when you have multiple action dice and abilities to chose from it will feel different.
Phone thing to remember is in4th Ed, you would run out of powers and be stuck with two at wills, and that's it. Here, at third level, you will 4 abilities, and two action dice (two chances to use your abilities in a turn, or once with a big boost) and this will be for every turn.
I thought the fighter was fun in play test, and I just did the more boring slayer. Next time I will try a dual wielding dualist elf.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 25, 2012 - 2:55PM
#35
|
|
|
Improvisation is what we are play testing in this this iteration. So why not use it.
Then why do casters get huge specialized sections of the book all to themselves, filled with specific, concise rules?
Because building a balanced magic system that focuses on improvisation creates a completely different game. If someone wants that, they can play with the white-wolf system for magic.
Apparently they wanted this playtest to be about improvisation. If only half the classes are actually about improvising, they have failed at their goal. They apparently did not even attempt a different magic system. This makes me question if "they wanted this playtest to be about improvisation, which is why the Fighter gets so little!" is just the excuse of those who can't bare to part with their old-style casters and their pages upon pages of content, and can't stand the thought of the martial classes getting as much attention.
As for it "create[ing] a completely different game", how do you know that? How do you know that a system that is looser (I never expected them to make it totally free-form, just as martial abilities should not) couldn't be made similar to D&D? Do you think it can't because the devs didn't even try? I mean, we are already apparently giving the Fighter a system that was never used in any edition of D&D before. They didn't even attempt to give them something akin to Essentials Fighters (As the devs seem to keep forgeting, 4E is an edition of D&D! You can use stuff from it too!), so new systems don't seem to be off the table. So what exactly is the reason?
It's VERY difficult to pull that off for magic and keep it balanced with fighters and rogues. Hell, it's hard enough to balance with the vancian spell system.
Just look at what you typed here. Isn't this something we should DEAL WITH? Vancian is hard to balance with martials. Apparently, a more loose spell system is hard to balance with martials. Does this seriously tell us NOTHING? Doesn't it seem to say that perhaps we should reevaluate the martials FIRST, since we are apparently having trouble balancing them with ANY sort of casters? Even as they add new things to them, it feels more and more like the martial classes are being pushed to the wayside to (hopefully) be dealt with later, cause OOOOOOO LET'S MAKE SOME NEW CASTER STUFF OH YEAH SO COOL!
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS.
Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 26, 2012 - 12:08AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
Just look at what you typed here. Isn't this something we should DEAL WITH? Vancian is hard to balance with martials. Apparently, a more loose spell system is hard to balance with martials. Does this seriously tell us NOTHING? Doesn't it seem to say that perhaps we should reevaluate the martials FIRST, since we are apparently having trouble balancing them with ANY sort of casters? Even as they add new things to them, it feels more and more like the martial classes are being pushed to the wayside to (hopefully) be dealt with later, cause OOOOOOO LET'S MAKE SOME NEW CASTER STUFF OH YEAH SO COOL!
The interesting thing is that you say this, but until the release of the sorc and wizards, they didn't really add much to casters. They toned down a couple things here and there (especially on clerics), but overall they didn't add a lot of spells, they didn't add a bunch of new mechanics.
Both the rogue and the fighter got MOST of the attention with the 2nd release. (3rd release being sorcs/warlocks) And the changes they added to them definitely helped bring them closer to where they should be imho. They're working on that balance and working on it hard. Fighters can still out DPS a warlock if they try (and are the 2-hander style fighter). That says something because those locks are beastly. They can even do it EVERY ROUND if they want. If they want to taper it down a hair to do something else, like get a second attack when they finish off a creature, or deal damage even though they missed, or just absorb some punishment, that's an option too. In addition, they brought back something that was lacking DIRELY in 4th edition... a pure fighter archer. Tricks that can make you one hell of an archer without having to resort to rolling a ranger (once they are released).
They also did a few things to help the rogue, including raise the damage for their SA at level 1 to keep them dangerous, and add even more strength to their already phenomenal ability with skills.
Now look at what they've done to Vancian Wizards... The spells no longer scale with level, and this removes a LOT of the quadratic power gain problem that wizards used to have. Wizards are able to do short bursts of GREAT control or damage to a group, but are paper thin. This is a standing rule for wizards, of course, but it reinforces that balance. The strongest wizard spells aren't fireball, it's spells like sleep, grease, etc. Stuff that controls the enemies to put the heroes at an advantage. The wizard has to be paper thin to be able to justify that kind of battle-field control. Incidently, I believe this is why the sorcerer doesn't get control spells. If builds are going to be as powerful as the Dragon Sorcerer overall, then they need to severely limit the arcane spell options. Perhaps open it up for weaker styles of Sorcerer (like wild mages or storm mages)... Just expand their spell list.
Just saying, it's not like they haven't done their homework... It's not like they aren't working on it... It's not like they aren't exploring multiple options. From what they've said, they expect the Beta to be about 2 years in the making before they're ready for release if things continue to progress as they are right now. This should show their dedication to getting it right.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 3:43AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
I think the Fighter could use more basic CS maneuvers available from level one, and untied from any of the fighting styles.
In fact, I would rather have the weapon styles give flat, one time bonuses (like a tiny damage bonus, whenever using their preferred style, maybe +2, or something) and let the Fighter have all the maneuvers straight out of the box.
Or something.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 11:46AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
The last thing I want in my D&D is 4e style balance.
Why?
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 11:48AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
That was 4E. I was a wizard with a staff, you were a wizard with a sword, the thief was a wizard with a dagger, etc. Sure everyone was balanced; because everyone was the same.
But....everybody was not the same. Not even close.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
