|
10 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:07PM
#101
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Simplicity in of itself does not equal imbalance. But simplixity put side by side with complexity means one or the other will be imbalanced, and let's face it we're not going to see a wizard with spells weak enough to put it below a simple fighter.
This is proveably false. It may be hard to balance simple and complex clsses. But it is probably even harder than that to balance two complex classes with very different mechanics.
But simple does not create imbalance, Period.
The two have nothing to do with each other. A character can be godly powerful and dead simple (You hit it, it dies) or it can be incredibly complex - and yet useless (I'm sure someone can find a Tier 5 class from 5E as an example - and if not you can always build one with a 3.x multiclass character).
There is no connection between the two concepts.
On the other hand, simplicity put side by side with complexity may mean that one or the other will be less fun to play. The problem is - not everyone will always agree which one is more fun.
I think the solution really is optional complexity. Build all of the classes with complexity, but allow them easy shortcuts to simplicity. Give the fighter lots of options, but have a build (Slayer?) which has 'do more damage' as the easy answer. Give the wizard lots of options, but allow them to take all encounter or all at-will spells (appropriately weaker in power) so they don't have to mess with Vancian memorization. Etc.
Carl
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:10PM
#102
|
|
|
Simplicity in of itself does not equal imbalance. But simplixity put side by side with complexity means one or the other will be imbalanced, and let's face it we're not going to see a wizard with spells weak enough to put it below a simple fighter.
This is proveably false. It may be hard to balance simple and complex clsses. But it is probably even harder than that to balance two complex classes with very different mechanics.
But simple does not create imbalance, Period.
The two have nothing to do with each other. A character can be godly powerful and dead simple (You hit it, it dies) or it can be incredibly complex - and yet useless (I'm sure someone can find a Tier 5 class from 5E as an example - and if not you can always build one with a 3.x multiclass character).
There is no connection between the two concepts.
Carl
Every class in 3e with anything close to the versatility of a 5e Wizard or Cleric was Tier 1. On the other hand, a Barbarian who could be built to be "You hit it, it dies" was still considered Tier 4. Raw power does not in of itself make a class. Yes, the power of your abilities does factor in, but versatility is far and away the biggest factor.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:13PM
#103
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
But the wizard makes the most sense as the more complicated.
Why?
Conversely, they're not picking the fighter to be simple out of a hat. It was the simplest class in 1e-3e and Basic. It's the logical choice.
Why?
We need simple classes among the big 4, the first releases.
All the Big 4 should have a "simple" option with the option for more complexity if they want.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:20PM
#104
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Simplicity in of itself does not equal imbalance. But simplixity put side by side with complexity means one or the other will be imbalanced, and let's face it we're not going to see a wizard with spells weak enough to put it below a simple fighter.
This is proveably false. It may be hard to balance simple and complex clsses. But it is probably even harder than that to balance two complex classes with very different mechanics.
But simple does not create imbalance, Period.
The two have nothing to do with each other. A character can be godly powerful and dead simple (You hit it, it dies) or it can be incredibly complex - and yet useless (I'm sure someone can find a Tier 5 class from 5E as an example - and if not you can always build one with a 3.x multiclass character).
There is no connection between the two concepts.
Carl
Every class in 3e with anything close to the versatility of a 5e Wizard or Cleric was Tier 1. On the other hand, a Barbarian who could be built to be "You hit it, it dies" was still considered Tier 4. Raw power does not in of itself make a class. Yes, the power of your abilities does factor in, but versatility is far and away the biggest factor.
That is because the Tier 1 definition explicitly included versatility as part of the definition.
So - yes - in a classificiation system that reserves its highest tier for versatile classes, no non-versatile class will ever be classed in the top tier. Duh.
Tier 1: "Capable of doing absolutely everything,"
Tier 2: "Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks"
But the particular narrow definitions of the Tier system is not the only way to approach balance (and this also ignores the fact that goal is to eliminate the Tier 1 category altogether).
Carl
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:23PM
#105
|
|
|
Simplicity in of itself does not equal imbalance. But simplixity put side by side with complexity means one or the other will be imbalanced, and let's face it we're not going to see a wizard with spells weak enough to put it below a simple fighter.
This is proveably false. It may be hard to balance simple and complex clsses. But it is probably even harder than that to balance two complex classes with very different mechanics.
But simple does not create imbalance, Period.
The two have nothing to do with each other. A character can be godly powerful and dead simple (You hit it, it dies) or it can be incredibly complex - and yet useless (I'm sure someone can find a Tier 5 class from 5E as an example - and if not you can always build one with a 3.x multiclass character).
There is no connection between the two concepts.
Carl
Every class in 3e with anything close to the versatility of a 5e Wizard or Cleric was Tier 1. On the other hand, a Barbarian who could be built to be "You hit it, it dies" was still considered Tier 4. Raw power does not in of itself make a class. Yes, the power of your abilities does factor in, but versatility is far and away the biggest factor.
Versatility is not complexity, it's versatility. There can be some overlap, and there was in the past, but they are not the same thing.
If the game is done correctly, there will be characters with versatility or focus, simplicity or complexity, and all will be balanced.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? My Webcomic: 5 Minute WorkdayUpdated every Tuesday and Thursday Spoiler:
Show
Updated Tuesday and ThursdayRead my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list). You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:23PM
#106
|
|
|
Simplicity in of itself does not equal imbalance. But simplixity put side by side with complexity means one or the other will be imbalanced, and let's face it we're not going to see a wizard with spells weak enough to put it below a simple fighter.
This is proveably false. It may be hard to balance simple and complex clsses. But it is probably even harder than that to balance two complex classes with very different mechanics.
But simple does not create imbalance, Period.
The two have nothing to do with each other. A character can be godly powerful and dead simple (You hit it, it dies) or it can be incredibly complex - and yet useless (I'm sure someone can find a Tier 5 class from 5E as an example - and if not you can always build one with a 3.x multiclass character).
There is no connection between the two concepts.
Carl
Every class in 3e with anything close to the versatility of a 5e Wizard or Cleric was Tier 1. On the other hand, a Barbarian who could be built to be "You hit it, it dies" was still considered Tier 4. Raw power does not in of itself make a class. Yes, the power of your abilities does factor in, but versatility is far and away the biggest factor.
That is because the Tier 1 definition explicitly included versatility as part of the definition.
So - yes - in a classificiation system that reserves its highest tier for versatile classes, no non-versatile class will ever be classed in the top tier. Duh.
Tier 1: "Capable of doing absolutely everything,"
Tier 2: "Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks"
Carl
Because the optimizers recognized the value of having so much versatility.
Even the tier 2 classes (Sorcerers, Psions, etc) had 2-4x more abilies than most other classes, and most importantly their options extended far beyond "I hit it, it dies". Yes they can do that, but they also have a dozen or so other tricks up their sleeve; just not the hundreds of tricks that the Wizard potentially has.
Your example of a simple class that was competitive with a wizard is "You hit it, it dies". I'm pointing out we had that in 3e. It wasn't considered good enough. It won't be considered good enough in a new edition either.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:25PM
#107
|
|
|
Simplicity in of itself does not equal imbalance. But simplixity put side by side with complexity means one or the other will be imbalanced, and let's face it we're not going to see a wizard with spells weak enough to put it below a simple fighter.
This is proveably false. It may be hard to balance simple and complex clsses. But it is probably even harder than that to balance two complex classes with very different mechanics.
But simple does not create imbalance, Period.
The two have nothing to do with each other. A character can be godly powerful and dead simple (You hit it, it dies) or it can be incredibly complex - and yet useless (I'm sure someone can find a Tier 5 class from 5E as an example - and if not you can always build one with a 3.x multiclass character).
There is no connection between the two concepts.
Carl
Every class in 3e with anything close to the versatility of a 5e Wizard or Cleric was Tier 1. On the other hand, a Barbarian who could be built to be "You hit it, it dies" was still considered Tier 4. Raw power does not in of itself make a class. Yes, the power of your abilities does factor in, but versatility is far and away the biggest factor.
Versatility is not complexity, it's versatility. There can be some overlap, and there was in the past, but they are not the same thing.
If the game is done correctly, there will be characters with versatility or focus, simplicity or complexity, and all will be balanced.
And how do you expect to match the mechanical versatility of the wizard without complexity? Please, be detailed. I'm eager to hear it.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:30PM
#108
|
|
|
But the wizard makes the most sense as the more complicated.
Why?
Conversely, they're not picking the fighter to be simple out of a hat. It was the simplest class in 1e-3e and Basic. It's the logical choice.
Why?
We need simple classes among the big 4, the first releases.
All the Big 4 should have a "simple" option with the option for more complexity if they want.
The answer to both is the same: because they were the classes with the most simplicity/complexity for the first 30 years of the game, so making a class with a similar level of complexity/similarity helps make the class "feel" appropriate. A simple wizard class would not "feel" like a D&D wizard and would alienate fans of the wizard. And WotC cannot afford to alienate any more fans.
I agree that there should be more complex options made available for interested parties, but there needs to be diversity in the base game for people who don't want options. There should be something for everyone right out of the box.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? My Webcomic: 5 Minute WorkdayUpdated every Tuesday and Thursday Spoiler:
Show
Updated Tuesday and ThursdayRead my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list). You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:37PM
#109
|
|
|
But the wizard makes the most sense as the more complicated.
Why?
Conversely, they're not picking the fighter to be simple out of a hat. It was the simplest class in 1e-3e and Basic. It's the logical choice.
Why?
We need simple classes among the big 4, the first releases.
All the Big 4 should have a "simple" option with the option for more complexity if they want.
The answer to both is the same: because they were the classes with the most simplicity/complexity for the first 30 years of the game, so making a class with a similar level of complexity/similarity helps make the class "feel" appropriate. A simple wizard class would not "feel" like a D&D wizard and would alienate fans of the wizard. And WotC cannot afford to alienate any more fans.
I agree that there should be more complex options made available for interested parties, but there needs to be diversity in the base game for people who don't want options. There should be something for everyone right out of the box.
Not core/not big 4 does not mean not in the PHB1. You can have simple classes at launch for people who want that without dumbing down the fighter to appease some misplaced sense of tradition.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 22, 2012 - 8:38PM
#110
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
The answer to both is the same: because they were the classes with the most simplicity/complexity for the first 30 years of the game, so making a class with a similar level of complexity/similarity helps make the class "feel" appropriate. A simple wizard class would not "feel" like a D&D wizard and would alienate fans of the wizard. And WotC cannot afford to alienate any more fans.
Ah, so "Because it's how it's always been done.".
And how would a simple Fighter and a simple Wizard with the option to add more complexity to each alienate anyone? It's explicitly givien everyone the option to play what they want.
I agree that there should be more complex options made available for interested parties, but there needs to be diversity in the base game for people who don't want options.
And there's no reason the Wizard should be the only class with complexity and the Fighter delegated to "Newbie Class." What if a Newbie got into the game because he wants to play a magic-user? Oh well too bad Fighter until you've had x amount of fun before you are ready to cast?
There should be simple and complex options for at least the Big 4 classes.
|
|
|
