|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 7:06AM
#601
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
The use of the term balance is like saying "world peace". Sure we all want world peace. But if I then tell you that the way you get it is to surrender your country to the enemy then all of the sudden world peace is not so attractive.
Your metaphor doesn't really equate to the situation at hand. If the enemy is homogenization, then that isn't what many of the people who ask that things be balanced are asking for. On the other hand, if your enemy is balance itself, or fighter's being able to do anything interesting, then the term balance is nothing like the term "world peace"... unless, of course, you are a war racketeer.
The 4e crowd and friends (for those of you who don't want in that group) has stolen the term. I don't doubt in a survey people will answer - yes they want balance. I'm sure prior to coming to these boards I would have answered the same. What you guys want though is not what other people would call balance. The the proof is in the pudding. It is a fact undeniable that 3e for all it's faults is still massively popular. Pathfinder the inheritor of the D&D mantle is perhaps the most popular. I could definitely go for some "tweaks" but not to the degree that 4e took it for sure.
More bologna. There is no proof in your pudding. Your problem lies in your own mental blocks, and your inability to disassociate the term balance from 4e. The word balance means exactly what someone like me is saying when we use that term. The word balance has nothing to do with 4e one way or the other, except insofar as 4e tried to achieve balance in combat (and made no real attempt to balance anything else). The sort of balance I want has nothing to do with 4e. The fact that 3e is popular does not prove anything; in fact, while it might be popular, like 4e it stopped being popular enough to keep up expected sales for a company as large as WotC. One of the reasons that happened was because people like me stopped purchasing those products due to how imbalanced they were. Pathfinder is not the inheritor of the D&D mantle, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. It cannot use the D&D brand name. It is nothing more than what you subjectively believe that D&D should be. That doesn't equate to it becoming the inheritor of the D&D mantle. As for what should or should not be tweaked, that is a matter for WotC to figure out via playtest surveys and marketing data. If we are simply spouting our preferences, then what I really want to see is a more robust 2e that makes use of some of the lessons learned in 4e.
Also Dave, it is pretty disingenuous for you to claim that the imbalance of these classes is so obvious but then claim you won't be able to figure out which is which if the category names are not right. WOTC needs to embrace it's past and not trash it.
Also, Emirikol, it is pretty disingenuous of you to claim that the word tradition has anything to do with 3e. 3e broke many of the traditions of 2e, and drastically imbalanced the game in the process. It is also disingenuous to label something that is imbalanced "traditional" instead of just calling it what it is: imbalanced. WotC needs to embrace objectively observable truths, not obfuscate them. In the process I hope that they do embrace their past, because one of my major gripes with 4e is that it was not really recognizable as the 2e D&D I grew up with.
Let's wait until the classes all get to 20th level before we discuss the current game. Even 10th might be enlightening. Then we will see how the game goes. First through fifth level is a bit too early to determine anything. We also haven't seen much in the way of magic items.
Agreed. I have already given my feedback on what exists to date (except for magic items, because I have not had time to look through the recent playpacket. I will continue to do so from this point on. Everyone should do the same. In the end, we will see who receives a product they can enjoy. If we both can, so much the better! But for me to enjoy this product it must live up to the conditions I have described, and I won’t purchase this product if I can’t enjoy it.
In the meantime, I LOVE the extra complexity they added to the fighter. It had made him a lot more fun, and a lot more of a comparable class in regards to the wizard.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 7:08AM
#602
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Thought we were discussing fighter complexity?
Good point.
I'm for some options for the fighter. I've never been against it. I am advocating that there be a non-wuxia fighter option and a magical wizard option that I can play together. If Dave or others think that combination is unbalanced then I suggest they don't play that combination. I do think others besides just me though would like such a combination.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 7:53AM
#603
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Thought we were discussing fighter complexity?
Good point.
I'm for some options for the fighter. I've never been against it. I am advocating that there be a non-wuxia fighter option and a magical wizard option that I can play together. If Dave or others think that combination is unbalanced then I suggest they don't play that combination. I do think others besides just me though would like such a combination.
See, due to Emerikol's double-speak, I am not sure what this paragraph really means. Does he mean "options" in terms of character creation, in game play, or both? Does he mean the option to be more or less effective? What does wuxia mean? To me, wuxia means a particular cinematographic style of movement, choreographed with over the top feats of acrobatics that can only be performed via wire-stunts. Wuxia, to me, means fighter's jumping from treetop to treetop as they throw knives at their foes on the ground, and kill air-born enemies mid-hundred-foot-leap. To me, wuxia means deflecting a storm of a hundred arrows with your sword. I don't particularly want to see a wuxia fighter class. I mean, I don't mind some other wuxia inspired class, so long as it is still balanced mechanically with everything else, but that is not how I want the fighter to play. But that doesn’t seem to be what Emerikol means. As far as I can tell, he seems to think that the CS die mechanic is already too wuxia, even though it cannot be used to perform anything nearing supernatural capabilities. I get the feeling that when Emerikol says wuxia, what he actually means is “the ability to do anything other than roll a skill check, or make a basic attack.” To me, such a class is boring. But, I don’t mind it existing as an option either—that is if it can be balanced with other options. If all it can do is make a basic attack, or roll a skill check, what it can do with those attack rolls and skill checks better be super effective. Of course, if it is not allowed to have more effective skill checks and basic attacks, and it can only make skill checks and basic attacks, then what “wuxia” actually means is “effective.” If Emerikol is really saying that he wants to have a non-effective fighter and an effective wizard that can be played side by side, I am still ok with that… as long as the non-effective class is clearly labeled as being non-effective (so that no player gets caught in that trap option), and so long as an effective non-wuxia class is available for play (preferably with the ability to do a little more than just make skill checks and basic attacks, as I find that boring).
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:12AM
#604
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
See, due to Emerikol's double-speak, I am not sure what this paragraph really means. Does he mean "options" in terms of character creation, in game play, or both? Does he mean the option to be more or less effective?
I meant I'm not against options for the fighter class in general. In the abstract.
What does wuxia mean? To me, wuxia means a particular cinematographic style of movement, choreographed with over the top feats of acrobatics that can only be performed via wire-stunts. Wuxia, to me, means fighter's jumping from treetop to treetop as they throw knives at their foes on the ground, and kill air-born enemies mid-hundred-foot-leap. To me, wuxia means deflecting a storm of a hundred arrows with your sword. I don't particularly want to see a wuxia fighter class. I mean, I don't mind some other wuxia inspired class, so long as it is still balanced mechanically with everything else, but that is not how I want the fighter to play.
Many are advocating exactly that by the way. Some even advocate for fighters that split mountains in two with their swords. They want a Paul Bunyan style game.
But that doesn’t seem to be what Emerikol means. As far as I can tell, he seems to think that the CS die mechanic is already too wuxia, even though it cannot be used to perform anything nearing supernatural capabilities. I get the feeling that when Emerikol says wuxia, what he actually means is “the ability to do anything other than roll a skill check, or make a basic attack.” To me, such a class is boring. But, I don’t mind it existing as an option either—that is if it can be balanced with other options. ....
Other than the plot couponish aspects of CS dice as they are written I don't have an issue with their power level. But we are only at 5th level. So we will have to see where the game goes from here. I did have some issues with the powers for martial classes in 4e. Most power wise I did not. But some I did. The problem is that your notion of balance is such that there is no way people can get the simple fighter if that is what they want. I've been advocating all along for a simple fighter, a middle of the road fighter, and a wuxia fighter. I realize that people like different things and have fun in different ways. Your notion of balance also means that the wizard is severely changed from what it was in editions prior to 4e. I'm against that too. Could I change a few spells? Sure. But my feeling is that you would eradicate half the spell book of wizards and the ones you would choose aren't even the one's I think are a problem.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:15AM
#605
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Generally speaking if athletic/acrobatic mobility which allows you to move through the battle field unimpaired by enemies and landscape and clamor over barriers at (PK) parkourp speeds kin to running are flavored one way they can be seen as wuxia ... flavored another way they the prince of persia and another way they are CuCulaine and the acrobatic celtic fighters who used spears as a media for many forms of awesome and still another they are Knights who can push through enemies with impunity.
Also at some point this needs to work with really big enemies which become the norm.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:25AM
#606
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Generally speaking if athletic/acrobatic mobility which allows you to move through the battle field unimpaired by enemies and landscape and clamor over barriers at (PK) parkourp speeds kin to running are flavored one way they can be seen as wuxia ... flavored another way they the prince of persia and another way they are CuCulaine and the acrobatic celtic fighters who used spears as a media for many forms of awesome and still another they are Knights who can push through enemies with impunity.
Also at some point this needs to work with really big enemies which become the norm.
I agree that a lot of this is fluff. I don't have a problem with fighters being able to move through threatened zones more effectively. In some of my own designs I give them that very ability. I've always thought that threatened squares should be hazardous terrain. If you move through it too quickly they get an opportunity attack. If you move through at a defensive speed, you don't. This to me is better than the 5 foot step thing which is too harsh especially for fighters. Defensive speed is maybe triple cost for non-fighters and double cost for fighters. Maybe even less at higher levels.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:58AM
#607
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Generally speaking if athletic/acrobatic mobility which allows you to move through the battle field unimpaired by enemies and landscape and clamor over barriers at (PK) parkourp speeds kin to running are flavored one way they can be seen as wuxia ... flavored another way they the prince of persia and another way they are CuCulaine and the acrobatic celtic fighters who used spears as a media for many forms of awesome and still another they are Knights who can push through enemies with impunity.
Also at some point this needs to work with really big enemies which become the norm.
I agree that a lot of this is fluff. I don't have a problem with fighters being able to move through threatened zones more effectively. In some of my own designs I give them that very ability. I've always thought that threatened squares should be hazardous terrain. If you move through it too quickly they get an opportunity attack. If you move through at a defensive speed, you don't. This to me is better than the 5 foot step thing which is too harsh especially for fighters. Defensive speed is maybe triple cost for non-fighters and double cost for fighters. Maybe even less at higher levels.
Your "Higher levels" for me is when Flying is the mobility du' Jour for enemies and spellcasters... So in 4e that wouldnt likely be til atleast around 16th level but that is on a 30 level scale. (And at that point it needs to be at near run speed)
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 10:36AM
#608
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Many are advocating exactly that by the way. Some even advocate for fighters that split mountains in two with their swords. They want a Paul Bunyan style game.
Not many, but some are. I am not one of them. Other than the plot couponish aspects of CS dice as they are written I don't have an issue with their power level. But we are only at 5th level. So we will have to see where the game goes from here. I did have some issues with the powers for martial classes in 4e. Most power wise I did not. But some I did.
I think you will find that many don’t mind plot coupons. Some do. But we will have to see what the majority preference on the matter is based on WotC’s design decisions going forward, and player response to those design decisions. As for the rest, who knows? Perhaps WotC will e able to please us both then.
The problem is that your notion of balance is such that there is no way people can get the simple fighter if that is what they want. I've been advocating all along for a simple fighter, a middle of the road fighter, and a wuxia fighter. I realize that people like different things and have fun in different ways. Your notion of balance also means that the wizard is severely changed from what it was in editions prior to 4e. I'm against that too. Could I change a few spells? Sure. But my feeling is that you would eradicate half the spell book of wizards and the ones you would choose aren't even the one's I think are a problem.
I don’t know about that. The slayer in 4e was a “simple fighter.” I thought, given the context of 4e, it was as well balanced as any other class. What matters to me is not the presence of simple builds. I am fine with simple builds existing alongside complex builds. What matters is that the math of every class leaves it balanced, in terms of overall mechanical affectivity, against every other class. I don’t know that to achieve that the wizard has to be drastically changed. As I said, so far I have no drastic problem with the existing wizard—its single target spells do a little too much damage, hold person is brokenly powerful, fireball does a little too much damage consider how effective its AoE footprint is (by 1d6 points, I would say), but nothing drastic. But like you said, we will see what comes… And as I said, if “simple” becomes double-speak for “imbalanced,” as in mechanically less effective, then you are correct. And if that is the case, then I am not ok with “simple” classes unless they are clearly labeled: imbalanced.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 12:06PM
#609
|
|
|
I've actually bothered to read all 61 pages of the discussion thus far, and have a few things to throw in(not that I'll contribute much to the discussion):
1. I've had a specific character concept in mind for many years now, but have been unsuccessful in execution through trial and inevitable error while part of a 3.5e, Pathfinder, and 4e campaigns. That is, a brash, loud, slightly charismatic fiend blooded former farmer turned bandit, to later become something of a warlord, primarily wielding a longspear and the occasional longbow. The closest I ever got to said build was with a Warblade, which, my DM, who is very strict about the rules, begrudgingly let in due to his distaste for Book of Nine Swords. His hatred for the content held within was ended with something of a sigh of relief due to the coming of 4e, which, I was completely unsuccessful in creating the character even somewhat in the same vein, considering the restrictions based on class roles. Pathfinder showed that their new fighter provided a few more options, but never handled the issue of class warfare regarding the haves and have nots(amusing double meaning intended).
2. I like the inclusion of the CS dice, but feel it needs some serious work. I think there needs to be more, it needs to be spread out more evenly among the levels, and needs to include more viable options. It's not a good sign when your best option is to simply do more damage.
3. I would like to see all martial characters have more options outside of combat. I feel the skill system is lacking and restrictive, and would like to be able to actually play some useful role when not hitting things with a weapon.
4. It bothers me that I'm perpetually gravitating to a concept that's represented by a low fantasy class in a high fantasy setting, thus making me next to worthless at higher levels. I was completely devastated when the Bard of our party listed a number of things at her disposal to utterly obliterate my super cool Warblade character which I held so dearly. I was devastated, and still am to this day.
5. I tire of save or die and save or suck abilities, especially when I have what is essentially a dump stat to defend with due to the extreme stat dependency of my class and concept of choice. Heck, to make a decent polearm fighter in 4e, I needed strength, dexterity, and wisdom to be decently built, and longed for a decent charisma and constitution purely for conceptual reasons alone. It infuriates me that a Wizard can live on intelligence and constitution alone.
6. Please eliminate dead levels. Everyone should get something for leveling, and should not punished for making the wrong class choice.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 4:01PM
#610
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
The 4e crowd and friends (for those of you who don't want in that group) has stolen the term.
Once again, why do you keep tryhing to turn every discussion you get in into a 4e bashing segment?
As far as wuxia fighters go, I only expect Fighters to be able to leap from tree top to tree top and cleave mountains in half at around the same level a Wizard is flying 24 hours a day and can vaporize Cthulu with his Superman Eye Beams.
|
|
|
