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.
1. Weak in his own regard? No. Not unless he was fighting opponents that clearly outclassed him, even if he was of the same level as them. Like Liches and Wizards who have Force Cage and other magical spells that could make life hell.
The Fighter is objectively considered imbalanced underpowered because he fits the tier 5 description:
Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.
He is a powerful warrior, able to kill stuff quickly... but because he is so feat-dependent (and feats can normally NOT be swapped like spells, if at all), he can only contribute to only one type of encounter: combat. Exploration? Oh look, no skills for that. Social? He could grunt, I guess.
You could say that it's a trade-off for being so powerful in combat, but why can't a warrior trade some of his in-combat prowess for out of combat utility, or trade damage for something else? Because tradition?
2. Wizards and clerics are not overpowered for you, apparently because 2.1 You prevent the 5MWD and keep them from doing stuff for the most part 2.2 You prevent them from getting overpowered spells 2.3 You put focus on the non-casters
That does not, in any way, mean that they're not overpowered when looked at objectively. Yes, they can regret owning an encounter later on when you DM, but that doesn't mean that they can't do anything that makes allies not contribute for the entirety of the encounter. That is the crux of the argument against spellcasters in 3.x, especially since they got all the spellpower of 2E (and more), and none of the built-in restrictions (all the restrictions mentioned so far in favor of 3.x are DM-side and not built-in).
Remember, tier one is defined as:
Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.
Wizards don't have to be tier 1 to be magical. Fighters don't have to be tier 5 at all.
Tier 3 is defined as:
Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.
The moment that the Fighter is capable of fighting well and is useful when it's inappropriate for him to fight, and when the Wizard is capable of doing everything but not as well as classes that specialize in it, without the DM having to directly intervene unless absolutely necessary (as part of the story, or when the occassional issue pops up), then we're fine.
Honestly, it's not even about fun. I've already posted several times that I've run rulesless games and people had fun. This is simply about what the rules have, ignoring DM intervention.
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.
Please enlighten me on what the heck you're talking about. We're not discussing "fun", we're discussing "options".
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.
Actually it's more like:
"I realize some people and some DMs don't like to play a game where wizards are at equivalent parity with warriors. Here are some options that make the godwizard possible, although remember to keep things civil and consider the non-casters. Those who feel they might have issues along these lines should ignore these options 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.
Except I expect story to be the focus of a campaign and not magic items, unless the magic items are the focus of the story, like how Kalak in the Prism Pentad series could only be destroyed by the Heartwood Spear. I expect that a campaign can start and end without a single magic item being acquired, and instead fame/reputation, strongholds, armies, training, divine blessings, and other non-magic item rewards can be gained in their place.
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.)
Except it's not an issue of playstyle, it's an issue of opportunity. There's no such thing as a balanced playstyle, because while balance can be fun for some people, rules provide only guidelines as to how to ensure that everyone experiences fun on the table. Opportunities and options are the important points of discussion here, because they are relevant in the development of the Fighter class and other non-caster classes to ensure that they are still able to do things even when they're not in their natural element.
4E still gave a nod to the Fighter's limited out-of-combat nature [which was virtually non-existent unless the DM intervened] by giving him a very small pool of utility powers that were useful outside of combat, as well as a very small list of skills with one of the lowest number of skills he can train in. But even then, 4E gave the Fighter far more out-of-combat utility than any Fighter before him by virtue of skill flexibility as well as the existence of utility powers in the first place -- prior to that, Fighters had to sacrifice a feat or a class level just to be able to do things aside from kill or set up for a kill.
It's not fun we're talking about in this thread. It's options. And those who want fighters to be more complex simply want their fighters to be able to apply their options in ways other than just combat, without having to go through all these loops just to get what they want.
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.
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.
You made up a system and then defined the classes by YOUR system. Anyone could do that. I don't accept the value judgments implicit in the system in question. I think the Tier system is totally bogus.
Here is an extreme example just to make a point. I'll make up system meh. In system meh we evaluate the value of a class based upon how much damage they could inflict in 1000 rounds of combat. Now the fighter is tier 1. The other martial classes fall in behind him. But so what? Your tier system is just some arbitrary groups definition of fun. It's not my definition nor is it the definition of those people who like 3e and Pathfinder better.
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.
I think you are woefully misled if you think people like me are "a few people". D&D is in serious straights since they "balanced" the game.
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.
What you want is clear. You are trying your best to deny though all the people who gladly accepted the imbalance you see in 3e over 4e. I don't think it would be too hard especially since you are a member of these boards, to figure out what traditional or modern meant.
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.
I think you should just give up. They are not going to achieve what you want even if they try.
I think it's sad when one group tries to wipe out another group's fun. I hope everyone who is reading this thread can now see who is inclusive and who is not.
One things for sure. If they really listen to you then 5e will flop just like 4e did. Then we'll have a 6e more to my liking. The group of people who want traditional D&D is too large a market to ignore.
There it is, folks. Fighters can't have nice things. Only one group of classes can have nice things. Is having classes that are mathematically superior to other classes in every facet of every pillar of the game really your only way to have fun? That is what we are asking them not to do.
I don't accept the value judgments implicit in the system in question. I think the Tier system is totally bogus.
So the one who claims he's all for options, claims that the system that gives a rough estimate on what options each class clearly had in relation to other classes... is bogus?
I think it's a fair enough system, given the fair enough assumptions that there are two things a class-based character can do: * something that he can do better than anyone else, based on his class * something that he can't do better than anyone else, based on his class
The ability for any class to do better at everything than any other class including those who are supposed to be better at it than anyone else is what we're rallying against in D&D Next and any edition of D&D past that (if any).
What you want is clear. You are trying your best to deny though all the people who gladly accepted the imbalance you see in 3e over 4e. I don't think it would be too hard especially since you are a member of these boards, to figure out what traditional or modern meant.
No. We want options. More options for those who want more options. You can have simple damage-god Fighter, and complex utility-god Wizard on the same table, but as an option chosen by the Fighter's player and the Wizard's player. Not because the Fighter's player wanted to play a warrior archetype but couldn't find one that could fight well -- assuming he got the right feats for the job -- and do something other than fight.
I hate system mastery as a requirement for casual play.
Not likely to happen, even if there IS at least one system that DOES have what we want more or less (13th Age). We just love the game in all of its forms to just let it be another clone of another edition. If it's supposed to be an edition to unite all editions, then all of the positive aspects that are compatible can be put together, then those aspects that are incompatible can be served as options instead.
They are not going to achieve what you want even if they try.
It's not so hard really. They already did half the work by separating some of the non-combat options from the combat options by introducing Specialties + Backgrounds (although I feel that skills as written is a step backward due to their limitations in use). All they have to do is push it further so that those who want to specialize in combat within the fighter class archetype can do so, while those who want their not-so-powerful, yet usable-out-of-combat options within the fighter class archetype can have what they want too.
I think it's sad when one group tries to wipe out another group's fun. I hope everyone who is reading this thread can now see who is inclusive and who is not.
One things for sure. If they really listen to you then 5e will flop just like 4e did. Then we'll have a 6e more to my liking. The group of people who want traditional D&D is too large a market to ignore.
As far as I can tell, not even the "modern" group is calling for an us-or-them stand on the matter of Fighter complexity. We just want martial characters -- especially the Fighter -- to have the ability to do stuff both in and out of combat, without having to break concept or rely on magic items or DM Fiat *just* to make the whole thing work.
By the way: last I checked, becoming #2 does not mean flop outright, just flop relative to expected target sales. Unless I'm mistaken, #3 is still a long way off from either PF or 4E.
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.
Chaosfang I am in the middle of two debates here. If all you are asking for is some extra skill points for the fighter then I'm all for it. I'm for everyone getting lots.
But I do not believe that is what Dave and I are debating about. And he most definite is NOT being inclusive. I asked only for a variety of classes. The ones that are too weak or too strong you can ban. I asked that the classes I like not be given a perjorative name. I'm ok with class options too.
Its only bad to drop to #2 when you owned #1 undisputed for years with no serious competition in sight.
You made up a system and then defined the classes by YOUR system. Anyone could do that. I don't accept the value judgments implicit in the system in question. I think the Tier system is totally bogus.
Here is an extreme example just to make a point. I'll make up system meh. In system meh we evaluate the value of a class based upon how much damage they could inflict in 1000 rounds of combat. Now the fighter is tier 1. The other martial classes fall in behind him. But so what? Your tier system is just some arbitrary groups definition of fun. It's not my definition nor is it the definition of those people who like 3e and Pathfinder better.
Sorry, but no. This game provides us with a system by which we can make objective value judgements by virtue of having mechanics. We know that 3 skills is better than 2. We know that +15 in a skill is more effective than +3. We know that dealing 200 damage per round is more effective than dealing 100 damage per round. We can calculate the probability of dropping a foe in X number of rounds based on the math of the game. We can figure out a reasonable number of rounds in which everything must be balanced by looking at the way encounters are generally designed, and looking at the game's own expectations in terms of how many encounters a group will face in any given day, or period of time played.
Weight is a relative measurement, but given a fixed gravity it can be objectively measured; the game's mechanics provide us a fixed gravity with which to measure the weight of any given class. The fact that you want to measure things outside of the framework of the game's own expectations, and use a hyperbolic example to show that outside of those expectations you can come to conclusions that widely diverge from reality, doesn't prove that reality isn't objective. It can be mathematically proven that a ball, thrown at a wall, will never hit the wall in question; that proof, however, doesn't hold up to objective reality. The fact that you don't want to accept objective reality is really none of my concern. I care only that the game does. I never want to see another class that can be proven to objectively outperform another class in virtually every area of the game, given the game's expected design parameters, and the game’s mechanical coding.
I think you are woefully misled if you think people like me are "a few people". D&D is in serious straights since they "balanced" the game.
I think you are woefully misled if you think that people like me are a “few people.” D&D is in serious straights if it fails to provide a balanced game. I would also make an educated guess that the majority of D&D’s fanbase wants a balanced game. We have WotC’s own comments on its marketing data to tell us that.
What you want is clear. You are trying your best to deny though all the people who gladly accepted the imbalance you see in 3e over 4e. I don't think it would be too hard especially since you are a member of these boards, to figure out what traditional or modern meant.
Don’t make this about 3e vs. 4e. What I want is not 4e. In fact, I drastically prefer WFRPG 3e to 4e D&D. While I like some aspects of 4e, and do prefer it to 3e, I have problems with many aspects of 4e as well. In fact, I don’t particularly want DDN to resemble 4e. The only thing I am denying is people who want to see classes that can outperform other classes in almost every area of the game. Actually, I am not even denying them. I am denying people who want to see classes that can outperform other classes in almost every area of the game and want those classes to be buried via coded double speak and confusing language so that people cannot clearly see them for what they are immediately. And no, I do not accept the terms “traditional” or “modern.” 3e is fairly modern. It is not the edition of the game I grew up with. And while 2e was by no means the most balanced edition of this game, or the most balanced RPG, it was a good deal more balanced than 3e!
I think you should just give up. They are not going to achieve what you want even if they try.
I think you should just give up. I currently like DDN. It is not polished yet. It still needs work. But I like its framework. Hell, the fighter, post the introduction of CS dice, is fairly well balanced with the wizard. Some of his abilities need to be tweaked, but WotC know that. Some of the wizards abilities need to be tweaked as well, but WotC knows that too. Moreover, balance, and balance of the sort I want to see (that is to say spread out over multiple different areas of the game via spotlight design, as opposed to 4e’s attempt to create balance via homogenization, and even that in terms of combat only) is explicitly one of their key design goals going forward. I am among the group of people who didn’t like the fighter in the first playtest packet, and received CS dice as a result. I think they are very likely to achieve what I want, and they seem to be trying… which means that the marketing data they have been receiving during this playtest indicates that trying to match my tastes is a smart business decision. You are the one who seems to have problems with the CS dice mechanic, and wants a simple “can’t do anything but hit stuff” fighter!
I think it's sad when one group tries to wipe out another group's fun. I hope everyone who is reading this thread can now see who is inclusive and who is not.
I am not trying to wipe out anyone’s fun. Like you, I merely want to ensure that this game will be fun for me. It won’t be if I have to weed out overpowered classes via trial and error ala 3e. That appears to be what you need for this game to be fun. It also won’t be if I have to translate double-speak instead of engaging with simple, honest, upfront language (just because some people can’t differentiate between subjective taste and objective measurement, and get offended because the game honestly tells its players that given its assumed design parameters classes X, Y, and Z are likely to be more powerful overall than classes A, B, and C).
Meanwhile, what I think is sad is that some people still try and say, "what is good for me will be good for you—because I say so—so what I want is inclusive, but what you want will be bad for me—because I say so—so it is exclusive." What a load of dung. Call a spade a spade. You don’t like what I like. I don’t like what you like. Neither of our tastes are likely to include the other persons. Sucks, but sometimes that is life. What I want is not good for you, and what you want is not good for me.
One things for sure. If they really listen to you then 5e will flop just like 4e did. Then we'll have a 6e more to my liking. The group of people who want traditional D&D is too large a market to ignore.
4e did not fail because it was balanced. It failed because of the manner in which it approached balance. I am willing to bet, based on the sort of feedback they have said they have received so far, and based on the community seen here, DDN will fail if it is anywhere near as imbalanced as 3e was. Classes cannot completely obviate other classes in all major areas of performance if this game wants to be a success.
But I do not believe that is what Dave and I are debating about. And he most definite is NOT being inclusive. I asked only for a variety of classes. The ones that are too weak or too strong you can ban. I asked that the classes I like not be given a perjorative name. I'm ok with class options too.
Its only bad to drop to #2 when you owned #1 undisputed for years with no serious competition in sight.
I am being no more or less inclusive than you. All I ask is that every key D&D concept can be created via a balanced class, and if imbalanced alternative classes exist they be clearly labeled imbalanced so that I don't have to figure out what I want to or don't want to ban (on the premise of balance) via trial and error. Now, if you think it is pejorative to call something mechanically stronger or weaker, to call something mechanically imbalanced, then they should make sure that nothing is mechanically imbalanced (within reason) so that nothing has to be burdened with a pejorative title which is an objective description.
What you want is clear. You are trying your best to deny though all the people who gladly accepted the imbalance you see in 3e over 4e. I don't think it would be too hard especially since you are a member of these boards, to figure out what traditional or modern meant.
Why are you always starting a 3e vs 4e argument everytime something comes up?
One things for sure. If they really listen to you then 5e will flop just like 4e did. Then we'll have a 6e more to my liking. The group of people who want traditional D&D is too large a market to ignore.
And at the same time, the group of people who demand a balanced game are also too large a market to ignore.
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.
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.
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.
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.
