|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 6:49AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
It`s all about combat! That seems to be what balanced meens now! And if you have a combat based campaign I guess it`s ok. If you don`t have an intirely strategy board game-ish, combat encounter focused game. If not, should balance be all about combat?..
*Putting on my old man voice*
I remember when I played 2nd ed. I was perfectly happy with being a halfling thief who sucked at fighting, that was the fighters job(at least at earlier levels of play until the spellcasters caught up), my job was to be great in other situations outside of combat! It all balanced out, but not in combat necessarily, we all had areas where we were the best.
Does being balanced have to do with being just as good at fighting as all the other characters? Is that what it should mean in the next iteration?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 6:51AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2010
|
In todays PC world, there can be no losers, only winners.
After having taught this to our children and ruining their ability to cope with failure, we now have to instill it in our games.
Everything is "balanced" so that everybody can do everything and nobody fails.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."- John Stuart Mill
Old Man of the House of Trolls
Resident Hater
God of Anger and Hatred.
Mini Hate Machine
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 6:59AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
The whining response you'll get is that since you can't balance roleplay, COMBAT IS ALL THAT IS LEFT. And being a non-combatant, missing, or being forced to use to a secondary attack form are NOT FUN FOR ANYONE.
Yeeeeeh, I don't believe it, either. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with having comabt oriented and non-combat oriented classes.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 7:00AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
Robin, you hit the nail on the head, sir.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 7:00AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
Robin, you hit the nail on the head, sir.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 7:08AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Dec 20, 2012
|
To me balance doesn't imply that everyone is equally good at everything but instead supports everyone having a moment to shine (which is partly the DMs responsibility). Having a balanced core keeps newer DMs from falling into various traps that can ruin the fun of the game.
Edit: forgot to add internal consistency, which keeps people from getting fed up trying to untangle the rules. Before anybody complains, I'm going to say that it is a play test and you'd be better off documenting those inconsistencies than complaining that they exist.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 7:10AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Balance is "mostly" around Combat because combat rules is the only part of D&D most groups agree on.
Once you get to noncombat, everything goes crazy with Full Narritive Never Rolls groups, to Charisma Check Mind control groups, to touchy-feely traps, to Disable Traps rolls, to "Since my fighter is a knight, I should get a bonus" groups.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 7:23AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
Balance is "mostly" around Combat because combat rules is the only part of D&D most groups agree on.
Once you get to noncombat, everything goes crazy with Full Narritive Never Rolls groups, to Charisma Check Mind control groups, to touchy-feely traps, to Disable Traps rolls, to "Since my fighter is a knight, I should get a bonus" groups.
But sneaking in to lairs, fooling monsters or npc`s, disableing or making traps, opening locks or picking pockets, rituals, turning into anoimals, shapeshifting, making items and many other things are all very tangible things you can do outside of combat! IMO that should all count for something! The weak and fish-out-of-water character on an adventuer is an appealing archetype to many players, just see Bilbo as an example! I agree with ardekrag that there should or could be combat oriented classes on non-combat oriented classes, as long as you have some areas you excel at.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 7:32AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Balance is "mostly" around Combat because combat rules is the only part of D&D most groups agree on.
Once you get to noncombat, everything goes crazy with Full Narritive Never Rolls groups, to Charisma Check Mind control groups, to touchy-feely traps, to Disable Traps rolls, to "Since my fighter is a knight, I should get a bonus" groups.
But sneaking in to lairs, fooling monsters or npc`s, disableing or making traps, opening locks or picking pockets, rituals, turning into anoimals, shapeshifting, making items and many other things are all very tangible things you can do outside of combat! IMO that should all count for something! The weak and fish-out-of-water character on an adventuer is an appealing archetype to many players, just see Bilbo as an example! I agree with ardekrag that there should or could be combat oriented classes on non-combat oriented classes, as long as you have some areas you excel at.
But that's not rules.
When I DM conversations, I make the players roll.
Some DMs don't.
Some DMs use complex skill systems or roll challenges.
You can't balance a PC around being charming with one noncombat rule because not every group uses that rule.
There are groups out that don't even roll to disarm traps. You have to narrate correctly how you disarm traps.
How do you balance narration with numbers? You can't.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 7:33AM
#10
|
|
|
It`s all about combat! That seems to be what balanced meens now! And if you have a combat based campaign I guess it`s ok. If you don`t have an intirely strategy board game-ish, combat encounter focused game. If not, should balance be all about combat?..
*Putting on my old man voice*
I remember when I played 2nd ed. I was perfectly happy with being a halfling rogue who sucked at fighting, that was the fighters job(at least at earlier levels of play until the spellcasters caught up), my job was to be great in other situations outside of combat! It all balanced out, but not in combat necessarily, we all had areas where we were the best.
Does being balanced have to do with being just as good at fighting as all the other characters? Is that what it should mean in the next iteration?
Actualy we should be trying for balance in other arenas as well I mean you have a wizard and a fighter, you balance them in combat ok with a old vancian wizard he could turn invissible for a number of hijynkins mind control everyone around them, open all the locks etc etc we have to also balance thatdon't you think?
Give other classes cool options outside of combat.
|
|
|
