I keep asking for choices and you keep insisting on your way alone. Sounds to me like you have the problem not me. I'm for inclusion not exclusion. If 5e like 4e is so far removed from D&D, then it will be passed over. People that love Pathfinder and 3.5e have to have a reason to abandon their games. 1e and 2e had most of the same "balance" issues as 3e so no I don't think they'd all agree. Knock has been in the game since 1e.
As a 1e-2e fan I will say that while I think the lack of balance of 3e is overblown by its detractors it was pretty unbalanced. Could people build super wizard/druid in some games sure, but I am not sure that was the norm. These players were not mentally deficient or lacking in creativity, they just didn't work the system.
Still 3e took out spell casting balance features such as casting time, it added concentration, it made the saves much harder to make making save or die spell more effective(and given the HP bloat that was a big shift). On the less noticeable side things like removing lead as a defense vs scrying was a move in the wrong direction, there should have been more mundane ways to counter magic not less.
Spells like knock on their own were not much of a problem on their own, one an unlocked door could still be trapped and 2 it took a spell slot. Yeah in 3e it sounds the same but with the magic item system it was very easy to have a wand of knock. And spells like ensers transformation were much weaker, you had the same thaco as a fighter but you still only could use a dagger or a staff and would only gain multiple attacks(2 per round) if you used the dagger.
This isn't to say some spells weren't broken in 1e-2e simularican was borked for example, but dropping a spell or 3 was not that big of a deal IMO and being very careful with the splat books was necessary as well. Yeesh heart of stone in players option: spells and magic was insane.
And this isn't to say I think 3e sucked or whatever. It had a lot of great points. I personally preferred the skill point system to just picking skills in 4e, or backgrounds in next. Adding a more universal game mechanic is generally a plus as well so pretty much everything being d20+modifier to hit a TN was great.
I keep asking for choices and you keep insisting on your way alone. Sounds to me like you have the problem not me. I'm for inclusion not exclusion. If 5e like 4e is so far removed from D&D, then it will be passed over. People that love Pathfinder and 3.5e have to have a reason to abandon their games. 1e and 2e had most of the same "balance" issues as 3e so no I don't think they'd all agree. Knock has been in the game since 1e.
As a 1e-2e fan I will say that while I think the lack of balance of 3e is overblown by its detractors it was pretty unbalanced. Could people build super wizard/druid in some games sure, but I am not sure that was the norm. These players were not mentally deficient or lacking in creativity, they just didn't work the system.
Still 3e took out spell casting balance features such as casting time, it added concentration, it made the saves much harder to make making save or die spell more effective(and given the HP bloat that was a big shift). On the less noticeable side things like removing lead as a defense vs scrying was a move in the wrong direction, there should have been more mundane ways to counter magic not less.
Spells like knock on their own were not much of a problem on their own, one an unlocked door could still be trapped and 2 it took a spell slot. Yeah in 3e it sounds the same but with the magic item system it was very easy to have a wand of knock. And spells like ensers transformation were much weaker, you had the same thaco as a fighter but you still only could use a dagger or a staff and would only gain multiple attacks(2 per round) if you used the dagger.
This isn't to say some spells weren't broken in 1e-2e simularican was borked for example, but dropping a spell or 3 was not that big of a deal IMO and being very careful with the splat books was necessary as well. Yeesh heart of stone in players option: spells and magic was insane.
And this isn't to say I think 3e sucked or whatever. It had a lot of great points. I personally preferred the skill point system to just picking skills in 4e, or backgrounds in next. Adding a more universal game mechanic is generally a plus as well so pretty much everything being d20+modifier to hit a TN was great.
I would probably be for all of these things 1. Serious spell disruption rules. I dlsliked 3e because at higher levels disruption became impossible. 2. Limit range of scrying by level and also allow lead etc.. to block it. I also had a houserule once that said you couldn't move the sensor and it didn't reveal its location if you couldn't figure it out from context. If you couldn't figure out the location you couldn't teleport there. 3. Limit range of teleport by level. 4. Skill points. Equal for all.
All of the above sorts of things are what I am calling tweaks. I am not wanting a game identical to 3e or Pathfinder. I do like some aspects of traditional D&D that 1e/2e/3e all had in common and 4e lacked. If 5e abandons a lot of those things then I won't like it.
The more I discuss these issues on the board though the more I come to believe that there aren't a fighter and wizard that both sides will like. The fighter will be so far above mundane as to be unbelievable or the wizard will be neutered so severely that it isn't D&D anymore. It's why I'd have options so I can play with a combination that works for me and others can change those same things up to suit themselves.
Your suggestions sound like Henry Fords comment "You can have any color you want as long as it's black."
Except my statement comes closer to "you can have any color you want, but the basic eight are what we have for starters. Here's a list of automobile shops for the custom colors, go crazy from there."
I do not want to be couched as being anti-balance in general. But what you guys define as balance is not what I want or consider necessary. So I just argue against your position. You have an attitude about the game and you call that "balance". I call it something else but I just don't want to devolve into arguments about terms.
However, I do consider a baseline necessary, and I do think that the baseline should involve level and class choice relevance more than system mastery. The options that can potentially make a DM's life harder and ruin the fun of other players should be kept as options that are more of in the DM's hands than in the player's hands.
Instead of the DM saying "these options are not for my table", I'd rather the rules have "these options are safe enough for any table. DMs see these options first and if they're good, add it in."
You know, core rules being light and modules adding complexity?
We just have major disagreements about these things. So I have advocated for options to allow me to have a game I enjoy and also for you to have a game you can enjoy. You seem determined though to not allow me my game. I will look at 5e but if I feel it is not as fun as 3e or Pathfinder then I'm not buying it. I was sucked in by 4e but I am going to evaluate 5e carefully. I need to vote with my dollars. I don't think they are nearly so extreme in their views but I am still concerned about some things they believe are true which are not. So I will wait to see what they do.
Where in blazes did I say that you should not have your options? What did I post that stated that you shouldn't have your fun? How do you define your fun and how do you think my fun is defined, and what makes my statements insist on my fun over your fun?
Last I checked, you posted that the 5MWD wasn't a problem at your table because you took steps to ensure that it wasn't a problem. How does giving fighters the option to be as complex or as simple as the players want to be while keeping within the archetype ruin your fun? How does restricting casters so that they can't replace non-casters just like how you did on your table ruin your fun?
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
The more I discuss these issues on the board though the more I come to believe that there aren't a fighter and wizard that both sides will like. The fighter will be so far above mundane as to be unbelievable or the wizard will be neutered so severely that it isn't D&D anymore. It's why I'd have options so I can play with a combination that works for me and others can change those same things up to suit themselves.
I, on the other hand, think that such an interpretation is an oversimplification of "us versus them" mentality, as opposed to an attempt to find real compromise.
I think no one here stated that Fighters should be above mundane at level 1, or even at level 5. It was, however, stated that Fighters remaining "mundane" at the same level as his more magical companions are able to easily fight hydras, dragons, giants and other mythical creatures is not only ridiculous, but not even rooted in D&D lore either, especially considering how you have high level warriors -- regardless of edition -- being able to walk away from a hundred foot drop without magic, barring houserules.
The fighter was never mundane or believable past level 10, in any edition, with or without magical abilities as granted by items or other classes. How else could you explain how he could survive where other men could not, especially if you used "hit points is wounds" argument? Or is walking around like a porcupine while dozens of arrows jut out of your body still mundane or believable? (Last I checked that's certainly a possibility with a high level, high CON warrior since 0E, especially if the attackers just so happen to roll low on their damage rolls).
[ Stormbringer's more realistic than D&D in that sense, due to eternally low hit points, use of blocking/parrying skills, and differences in specializations and what not. ]
So I think that giving fighters the ability to actually do stuff that stretches-but-not-breaks-concept is still rooted in the whole thing. Being able to cleave through multiple opponents is already known to be easily achieved by fighters in D&D, even though in reality it's unlikely that any training in the world would let you cleave through multiple opponents regardless of your weapon's quality, your opponents' armor quality, etc. Being able to knock giants prone (using D&D Next rules, so long as these giants are just one size larger than the fighter) is certainly not going to look believable if your target had a CON of 26 + a DEX of 14 and you have a STR of 15 and a DEX of 8, yet it's still possible not only because of the rules but because they're skilled warriors that utilize training, timing and battlefield experience.
Wizards were neutered before by both the system (Vancian limitations to spells per day, in addition to natural spell resistance) and the DM (adversarial play against casters, particularly with making them regret to force a rest no matter what they do, constantly breaking spell concentration checks and sometimes preventing them from re-interpreting the spell in ways other than how they were written and how the DM interprets them). It's only in 3.x where Wizards had the least neutering (virtually no neutering at all, with the right options); 4E Wizards were both weakened and strengthened, so it was far easier to break spell [ritual] concentration automatically -- thus you couldn't really cast rituals mid-combat, at least not until later splatbooks weakened this limitation -- and those that took just 6 seconds to cast were weakened accordingly... so while you might think 4E Wizards were bland, I think 4E Wizards were simply reinterpreted to ensure that those who lack magic can still play alongside those who can.
[ Execution wasn't perfect, I understand, but still the concept was good. ]
Even the most pro-balance of the posters would likely agree upon sticking to concept: fighters fight with weapons and defeat enemies using battle prowess, while wizards use magic and warp reality as they see fit. As long as a) those concepts are kept at heart b) neither one treads upon the other
That's as good a balance as most people will be satisfied with.
I remember this one post a few months ago, where the poster relayed his grievances: he was a fighter, with all sorts of multiclassing stuff so that he could be this super-strong warrior who can dish out exceptional amounts of damage. Except this one time, his friend (who was playing a druid) just saw this nifty looking creature he could wild shape into, and transformed into a creature so powerful that he demolished the fight and turned the fighter into a watcher. His friend apologized later on, but the damage was done: he was devastated.
That should never happen in D&D, even if it's by accident, unless the entire group is in concensus with it, especially the DM.
Again: 1. Fighters shouldn't rely on magic to be fighters, and wizards shouldn't be able to become fighters (not even temporarily). [EDIT: wizards shouldn't be able to become any class other than wizard, not even temporarily. Have them do magical stuff, sure, but not to the point where other classes can be move to the sidelines. Or should fighters really have to become Christmas trees -- and thus, become magical (albeit at the DM's discretion) -- just to (barely) keep up with the casters?] 2. Players playing as fighters should have options that allow them to play their fighter the way they want, even if it means losing out on damage or what not. You know, like how they advertised fighters only a couple of months ago?
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Your suggestions sound like Henry Fords comment "You can have any color you want as long as it's black."
Except my statement comes closer to "you can have any color you want, but the basic eight are what we have for starters. Here's a list of automobile shops for the custom colors, go crazy from there."
What you are missing: 1. I do not consider the fighter imbalanced or weak in 3e. 2. I do not consider the wizard or cleric overpowered. 3. There may be SOME class I consider a bit weaker but Fighter is not one of them. I consider all the classes though fun enough in the core books. 4. You keep stating that I changed the game to make it playable. I did not. I played RAW fully. I believe most of the problems people have are because they do not. 5. The 5MWD is an issue only if the DM stolidly refuses to play his monsters realistically. I wrote a blog on the subject you can check it out. 6. I am willing on a case by case basis to evaluate any spell. The overall flavor though of D&D spellcasting from prior editions is something I'd like to have.
I don't buy your entire worldview on balance. You keep talking like I've accepted your beliefs about it. I have not. And I refuse to have my playstyle getto-ized or marginalized because of how you feel about it. 4e and Pathfinder are both available. At least half the people (if not more) have chosen either 3e or Pathfinder over 4e. This horrible brokenness of which you speak has not deterred those people from having fun.
This is how your statements sound in reverse: I realize some people and some DMs are not able to play the game as written and intended without losing control. Here are some classes with additional safeguards that will help those groups stay on track. Those who feel they might have issues along these lines should try the training wheel classes first.
Also I don't have a problem with some expectation of magic items at high level. I don't want +X weapon or +Y armor or even +Z wand being a requirement. But the general expectation that characters will have something and in some cases that those things will be helpful is not a problem for me. So if I want a flying fighter I'll give him a ring of flying. But if a high level fighter is going to be magical, then I want magic to be the reason and not wuxia. And DMs can handle this it doesn't need to be a rule other than a guideline that suggests quantities.
Remember I am not trying to eliminate your playstyle. I am not judging your playstyle. I could by the way but thats beside the point if your having fun. I just want a game that is fun and is D&D to me. If 5e is another game thats unrecognizable as D&D, then I'll just go back to D&D. The attitudes of a lot of people around here make me think I'd be happier with the Pathfinder people anyway. (Yes I haven't played Pathfinder yet. I own just the core book. I am not even part of the sales figures of Pathfinder. There are a lot of people like me out there.)
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
if only hundreds of tables are running D&D it would be a nothing hobby ran by a tiny mom and pop shop.
Most the gameshops I have ever been in are still open because of Magic. D&D only makes them any money cause they have a snack section in store.
I was talking about WOTC being mom and pop not the game stores selling it. It is true though that D&D is not a big profit maker for game stores. My theory of game stores is that the farther you get from "civilization" the more stuff you have to carry to be viable. It's probably counterintuitive but still true.
Emirikol, the statement that you want to include choices for everyone and your opposition wants to remove a choice that you would enjoy is not true. The truth is, there are two choices which are directly oppositional; there are those who want a balanced game and those that don't. That is it.
I don't care if there is a group of imbalanced classes, so long as all of those classes are kept as part of a separate module, their imbalance is clearly labeled, and all of the core D&D concepts exist without needing to use one of those classes. But freely mixing in imbalanced classes into the balanced classes will lead to the same sort of problems that occurred in 3e, and making imbalanced versions of key D&D concepts without providing an alternative results in a game where it is impossible to play certain character concepts without destroying the balance of the party.
You want a game in which the imbalanced classes are not “ghettoized,” ie: clearly labeled and kept separate from the other classes. You want a game in which some classes can completely obviate the purpose of other classes. You don’t want a game where all classes are tier 3 or 4 classes, and where tier 2/5 builds exist on the fringes, but no tier 1 or 6 builds (let alone classes) exist. That destroys what we consider fun just as much as what we want destroys what you consider fun. Put plain and simply, this is one of the areas where what our two disparate parties’ desire is not compatible.
Now, possibly the designers will be able to make a game that is balanced, but is presented in such a way that you are happy as well. But, based on these conversations, I doubt it. So all that really remains to be seen is who likes the game enough to purchase it; considering that the devs have named balance as an explicit goal of this edition, I think those of us who like balance but also don’t want the game to resemble 4e will be happy. I assume those who want imbalance, or want the game to nearly perfectly resemble 4e, will be unhappy. Perhaps I am wrong, but we will have to see…
Emirikol, the statement that you want to include choices for everyone and your opposition wants to remove a choice that you would enjoy is not true. The truth is, there are two choices which are directly oppositional; there are those who want a balanced game and those that don't. That is it.
If you have enough classes and class options (meaning the wizard could be one class with multiple options) then you can cover both sides wants.
I don't care if there is a group of imbalanced classes, so long as all of those classes are kept as part of a separate module, their imbalance is clearly labeled, and all of the core D&D concepts exist without needing to use one of those classes. But freely mixing in imbalanced classes into the balanced classes will lead to the same sort of problems that occurred in 3e, and making imbalanced versions of key D&D concepts without providing an alternative results in a game where it is impossible to play certain character concepts without destroying the balance of the party.
You want a game in which the imbalanced classes are not “ghettoized,” ie: clearly labeled and kept separate from the other classes. You want a game in which some classes can completely obviate the purpose of other classes. You don’t want a game where all classes are tier 3 or 4 classes, and where tier 2/5 builds exist on the fringes, but no tier 1 or 6 builds (let alone classes) exist. That destroys what we consider fun just as much as what we want destroys what you consider fun. Put plain and simply, this is one of the areas where what our two disparate parties’ desire is not compatible.
I'm not against providing information that would help people figure out what they want. But no I do not want your value judgments which a lot of people disagree with being the way things are described. More neutral terms though could be used. Perhaps traditional versue modern might be acceptable terms. These classes or options are in keeping with the original traditions of D&D while these others approach the game from a more modern viewpoint. I dislike the term modern because in gaming thats a nonsense term so another might be better if you had a suggestion. But no I won't have my stuff labelled "imbalanced" because for those of us who like it it is not imbalanced. Players might see that label and say - oh I don't want to play with imbalanced classes - when in reality they like me might never have that issue.
Now, possibly the designers will be able to make a game that is balanced, but is presented in such a way that you are happy as well. But, based on these conversations, I doubt it. So all that really remains to be seen is who likes the game enough to purchase it; considering that the devs have named balance as an explicit goal of this edition, I think those of us who like balance but also don’t want the game to resemble 4e will be happy. I assume those who want imbalance, or want the game to nearly perfectly resemble 4e, will be unhappy. Perhaps I am wrong, but we will have to see…
I am pretty sure they aren't going to go total wuxia on the fighter. At least from what I've seen they are not. I also think they know the wizard was way too flavorless in 4e. So you are right. Who knows what will happen. When the game is released, you might wish you'd taken me up on my suggestion. Because if they really are serious about getting back the lost 3e/PF players, my approach would be the least offensive. I'm assuming if they just ignore you entirely and put in classes I'll like that would be worse. They might very well do that. My read on the playtest so far is that the wizard is not going to be nearly as limited as in 4e.
I'm not against providing information that would help people figure out what they want. But no I do not want your value judgments which a lot of people disagree with being the way things are described. More neutral terms though could be used. Perhaps traditional versue modern might be acceptable terms. These classes or options are in keeping with the original traditions of D&D while these others approach the game from a more modern viewpoint. I dislike the term modern because in gaming thats a nonsense term so another might be better if you had a suggestion. But no I won't have my stuff labelled "imbalanced" because for those of us who like it it is not imbalanced. Players might see that label and say - oh I don't want to play with imbalanced classes - when in reality they like me might never have that issue.
Like I said, what we want is not compatible. The only way I would accept such classes, even as a module, is if they are very clearly labeled in terms of their mechanical capabilities. You see, my "viewpoint" is not a viewpoint, it is an objective fact. It is objectively factual that the 3e wizard was more powerful, mechanically speaking, then the fighter at every aspect of the game. In terms of skill use, damage, save-or-die, save-or-suck, or even the ability to place a tank on the battlefield, the wizard was mechanically superior. This can be proven numerically. The fact that you found both equally fun, and ran your table in such a way that you and your group did not feel that reality, is of no consequence to me. People like me can sit down and show you how the wizard's numbers are more effective. That is all there is to it. Unless the game clearly labels the classes that are more and less effective than the norm, then I will be upset. I don't want to have to read double-speak labels just because a couple players cannot accept basic objective mathematical comparison.
Now, I am not saying one is more or less fun. I am not talking about what is fun at all. You see, fun is subjective, and maybe that imbalance is subjectively fun for you. But unless the game clearly states "these classes have less effective mechanics in these areas of the game, and these classes have more effective mechanics in these areas of the game," I am not interested in having to figure out what does or does not work for myself. I never want to experience the sort of play that I experienced with 3e ever again.
I am pretty sure they aren't going to go total wuxia on the fighter. At least from what I've seen they are not. I also think they know the wizard was way too flavorless in 4e. So you are right. Who knows what will happen. When the game is released, you might wish you'd taken me up on my suggestion. Because if they really are serious about getting back the lost 3e/PF players, my approach would be the least offensive. I'm assuming if they just ignore you entirely and put in classes I'll like that would be worse. They might very well do that. My read on the playtest so far is that the wizard is not going to be nearly as limited as in 4e.
It is a good thing that I don't want "wuxia," nor do I want wizard's to be quite as narrow in their capabilities as 4e. But, likewise, I have no desire to ever play a game with the blatant imbalances of 3e ever again. The fighter better be able to deal more single target damage than the wizard ever can. The fighter better always be the best tank on the battlefield, whether the wizard has summoned in help or not. The fighter better be able to deal comparable AoE damage to the wizard over the course of a reasonable period of time. The wizard better have no ability to force a 5 minute workday; rope trick better never allow for the wizard to rest whenever he wants, no matter what situation he is in; same goes for any other spell. EVERY class better be able to do SOMETHING better than any other class, and that something better occur with enough frequency that the overall time period which any single “something” takes up in any given game is roughly equal. So yes, we will see who ends up happy with the end product. Meanwhile, classes that fall outside of such a power norm better be clearly labeled as a modular option, and the manner in which they fall outside of such a power norm better be clearly described.
