Did you have an argument with merit to offer? Or were you just planning on offering up something things that have nothing to do with my statement?
What exactly was it in 4e, that was done for the sake of balance, that made it boring?
The sameness of mechanics. 4e tried to balance classes through sameness of mechanics and that bored me. I liked the mechanically diverse classes of 1e-3e. They also balanced the game by making feats and magic items have a more limited/minor impact on the game. That was also boring. I would rather have very few signifiicant feats and items, than a bunch of negligible feats and items.
I never said otherwise. I said that your experience there was really very much so an exception. I'm not sure what you did, or what your DM did to support you, but I can tell you that in core 3.5, that simply is not something that can be done without extreme amounts of GM intervention or a group of players that have an agreement of that goal.
That's not true. This is a case of perception, not one of system. If you perceive your character as being weak and not being able to contribute, then that is what you will get. 3e was so incredibly easy, that you didn't need to be optimized to high heaven in any class in order to skate through to level 20.
You mistake "I have to multi-class to make my character useful in comparison to other characters" with "power gaming" again.
I've never mentioned multi-classing at all, so how could I be mistaking that with anything. I did prestige class a lot, but that wasn't for power so much as many prestige classes fit my character concept.
You keep slinging around "power gamer" like only peole that have a problem with balance are people that want to insta-kill things.
I keep slinging around power gamer because people keep slinging around power gamer builds like shock trooper and other references to char-op builds. If they stop, I'll stop.
What about people that just want to accomplish just as much as another character, and not do half their damage, miss twice as often, and not actually accomplish any combat maneuvers?
I wouldn't know. None of my characters had that problem. That's not actually true. A very few had that problem, but I deliberately designed them that way for specific games.
You are quite invited to post 3 mechanically different, viable fighter builds. Just the concept, I don't need the full build. Maybe name a feat or two, I'm not asking for a character sheet. I can do this for 4e without even trying - because of that balance that you find "boring" apparently.
We clearly have different ideas of "viable", so it wouldn't really be fruitful for either of us to do.
What exactly was it in 4e, that was done for the sake of balance, that made it boring?[/quote]The sameness of mechanics. 4e tried to balance classes through sameness of mechanics and that bored me. I liked the mechanically diverse classes of 1e-3e.
Can you just cut to the chase and say the AEDU system? That's what made it boring? Sorry if I don't follow that. I can't tell you that you're wrong in finding that boring, but I simply cannot understand it. Each round, you have something tactically interesting to do. I don't find the management of such things to be a nessicary mini-game within D&D I suppose; I guess others do.
They also balanced the game by making feats and magic items have a more limited/minor impact on the game.
I don't think that had anything to do with balance; your character was made unique by the class that you chose and the powers and abilities within that class - all feats were for was to give you perks and bonuses. Most things you were trying - with mixed levels of success - to do with feats in 3e were now class options or powers. I'm not sure that magic items were made any more limited in their role in the game for the sake of balance.
That's not true. This is a case of perception, not one of system. If you perceive your character as being weak and not being able to contribute, then that is what you will get. 3e was so incredibly easy, that you didn't need to be optimized to high heaven in any class in order to skate through to level 20.
So, to just pull this out into the open and not dance around it - you think that casters and martial builds were balanced in 3e?
Moreover, the difficulty of the game is directly related to the opposition the DM throws at you. This, in return, is directly related to the level of threat that your party is capable of handling. In all editions, the big problem comes when you have different characters with different capabilities in how they can handle a threat - that makes the DM's life hard, because he either over-challenges the lower power level, or under-challenges the higher-level power.
Can you just cut to the chase and say the AEDU system? That's what made it boring? Sorry if I don't follow that. I can't tell you that you're wrong in finding that boring, but I simply cannot understand it. Each round, you have something tactically i
Can you just cut to the chase and say the AEDU system? That's what made it boring?
Why would I say that? It wasn't AEDU. It was EVERY CLASS using AEDU. As well as the similarity in powers. I like separate systems. AEDU has a place among those systems.
I don't think that had anything to do with balance; your character was made unique by the class that you chose and the powers and abilities within that class - all feats were for was to give you perks and bonuses. Most things you were trying - with mixed levels of success - to do with feats in 3e were now class options or powers. I'm not sure that magic items were made any more limited in their role in the game for the sake of balance.
I think both were primarily for balance sake.
So, to just pull this out into the open and not dance around it - you think that casters and martial builds were balanced in 3e?
Not even close. The imbalance of 3e was not good. However, the game was so easy that even a purely martial group had a fairly easy time of it. 3e was too imbalanced. 4e was too balanced. So fare 5e is looking like it will be balanced somewhere in the middle of the two, which is where I think balance should be.
Moreover, the difficulty of the game is directly related to the opposition the DM throws at you.
I'm talking about the game as written, not the DM making things extra hard on the PCs in order to challenge them. If you follow the rules for encounters as they are written, the game is a cake walk. If the DM has to make the game extra hard, it's pretty much a house rule/home brew game that has no place in this discussion.
Can you just cut to the chase and say the AEDU system? That's what made it boring?[/quote]Why would I say that? It wasn't AEDU. It was EVERY CLASS using AEDU. As well as the similarity in powers. I like separate systems. AEDU has a place among t
It was EVERY CLASS using AEDU. As well as the similarity in powers.
Which is what I meant by the AEDU system in 4e. I guess I had to specify the blanket use of it. I am still confused by the requirement for a different power-management mini-game for each class or group of classes, but to each their own. As far as similarity in powers in 4e? Yes, the duplicate powers, or the powers that simply were more-damaging versions of previous powers did annoy me. I don't think that makes the system boring in-and-of-itself. If you mean to imply a similarity in the fighters powers and the wizards powers, or the rogues powers and the clerics powers, then...no. That is a lunatic argument. Even implying a similarity between a fighters and a fighters powers (not a typo) is pretty hard to back up when you can make two different fighters SO different.
I think both were primarily for balance sake.
On what basis? I don't see how marginalizing the effect feats had on characters could be done for the sake of balance, when you already have so many different options within the class system. Perhaps because then any class could take them maybe? That's pretty hard to back up though. Maybe you meant to get rid of the fighter's ability to extra feats, something they needed to not just be a commoner with a better BAB and more weapon profs?
Not even close. The imbalance of 3e was not good. However, the game was so easy that even a purely martial group had a fairly easy time of it. 3e was too imbalanced. 4e was too balanced. So fare 5e is looking like it will be balanced somewhere in the middle of the two, which is where I think balance should be.
Unless I'm severely mistaken, 4e wasn't "too balanced", you simply did not like the power-management minigame being the same for all classes (re: "was boring because of sameness in mechanics/sameness in mechanics as in AEDU for all classes). 4e could easily remain 95% the same if they had a different way of selecting powers - this is pretty strongly backed up by essentials and psionics builds, both of which operated on heavily modified AEDU systems but were pretty distinct.
Moreover, you could easily make a game with all AEDU classes blanced, or imbalanced.
(As a brief aside, if 5e was nothing but 4e with different ways of using powers, plus actual support for rituals, skill usage, and skill challenges that didn't suck, together with updated rules and the right math fixes, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, even if they sold it as "4.5".)
I'm talking about the game as written, not the DM making things extra hard on the PCs in order to challenge them. If you follow the rules for encounters as they are written, the game is a cake walk.
Are you talking about pre-written campaigns and adventures? Because the DMG puts in that 1 in 20 encounters should be overpowering (EL 5 or higher). If you were to assume the CR system in 3.5 works (it doesn't) that would wipe the wall with most martial builds that weren't very highly optimized - and it would shred them even harder if the GM knew how to play to strengths and weaknesses of the party or to set up the environment in such a fashion that it messed the players up as well.
Which is what I meant by the AEDU system in 4e. I guess I had to specify the blanket use of it. I am still confused by the requirement for a different power-management mini-game for each class or group of classes, but to each their own. As far as sim
I've never played WoW, but I have played other MMO games and they are extremely complex and involve juggling 3-5 digit numbers and multiple variables that you can't see. Go to any optimization website for an MMO and you'll find out the numbers are way more complex and involve way more variables.
Most MMO's instead of leveling your character and getting new abilities go with leveling abilities and leveling your character. So each ability increases in power independently of your level and then usually gets boosted by your stats which are affected by level. Anyone trying to convince me that MMO's have less variables and are less complex than D&D needs to put forth some serious facts in order to have a chance. You are not even coming close.
4E does have a decent sim. Go check out Fantasy Grounds with the 4E module. Its simulates just about everything and each update makes it better. There are a few areas that it doesn't simulate, but those are because of limitations in Fantasy Grounds and player choice. It would be laughably easy to make a simulator for 5E. It could be done quickly by a competent automated testing company. Please at least look into automated testing and how Fantasy Grounds works for examples of how easy it would be to do this.
You make an interesting point, but there are some very important differences you aren't addressing.
Mainly, an MMO such as WoW is extremely consistent in things like damage and spell effects. Modeled DPS is remarkably similiar to real DPS (among highly skilled players). Part of the reason for this is that WoW "boss" enemies have so many HP that battles last for 5+ minutes. In D&D terms, it's like the equivilent of 150+ rounds of combat per boss. With consistent damage to start, combined with the huge smoothing effect of dividing that damage out over 150 seperate attacks, the model and reality match very closely.
In D&D, this isn't the case at all. Combat is so short in comparison that a single lucky crit or lucky saving throw can make the actual results of combat vastly different from the expected modelled results. When a combat is only going to last 3-4 rounds on average, the effect of one or two unusual die rolls is huge and there aren't enough combat rounds to smooth out the anomoly.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a very good thing. D&D is fun because combat can be unpredictible, MMOs are very boring to me because even though the combat might take 5 minutes you can easily tell where things are going 30 seconds in based on how much damage has been delt and how many raid members have died.
I love the randomness and unpredictibility of D&D, but I am also aware that it means you can't just model combat and expect reality to match the model every time.
Which is exactly my point and why they need to balance across 4,000 or more iterations rather then doing what they are doing now and doing a couple battles and calling it good.
I play the Vindictus MMO on the eastern server. My characters name is the same as my forum name. It is very swingy and because it has a physics engine and relies on aiming and moving around, you can win or lose regardless of what happens in the first minute or so. I have had bosses that are half my level kill me because I couldn't hit them or they used tactics. Now maybe this isn't typical in all MMO's, but it shows that tactics are more important than numbers in MMOs. Which is another reason why its not a good comparison.
No one is talking about modeling combat in math. We are talking about creating a simulator that calculates the math as it would happen in a game. It would do this and show what works mathematically and what does not work. Then they can take the results and play test it with real people repeatedly and then make a game that is fun and balanced...
You make an interesting point, but there are some very important differences you aren't addressing.Mainly, an MMO such as WoW is extremely consistent in things like damage and spell effects. Modeled DPS is remarkably similiar to real DPS (among high
Yes, don't bother with intellectually honest discussion that tries to reach mutually satisfying goals, because that would be pointless. Instead continue to make emotional arguments that do nothing but inflame the readers and continue to force the edition war to the forefront of the forums!
Good Job!
If only the people using the fallacy checklist were advancing the discussion or correctly identifying strawman arguments instead of trying to find shelter you would have a point.
Most of those fallacies are used incorrectly. Nothing a good philosophy 101 couldn't fix. The internet is not good at teaching debate.
If that were so, you should point it out and possibly quote the definition of a straw man argument or the fallacy you are refuting, you know, use facts to prove or disprove things. That way the discussion can move forward...
If only the people using the fallacy checklist were advancing the discussion or correctly identifying strawman arguments instead of trying to find shelter you would have a point.Most of those fallacies are used incorrectly. Nothing a good philosophy
Its not a fallacy unless it's logically unsound. My argument is that too much balance in an RPG is boring. Given that we've never seen a balanced RPG (and I don't think we ever will), you cannot show my argument to be logically unsound on its face. Further, the argument wasn't balance == boring. It was too much balance in an RPG == Boring. At least get it right
Generally people citing balance = boring aren't really talking about balance and are talking about other elements in the system.
For instance, 4E isn't boring because it's balanced, it's boring because combats take too long. That has nothing to do with balance, but rather with how the length of combat is set-up.
4e had multiple issues with it. It went too far down the road to balance and in the process, the way they chose to achieve that balance was itself boring. I don't confuse things that way. If I had meant to say that combat was boring, I would have said that combat was boring, not balance.
See this statement is actually true. The key part that you need to include in most of your statements is this part "The way they chose to acheive that balance was itself boring." That indicates that they could choose another way to acheive balance that wouldn't be boring. Good job Max!
You can have a balanced rocket tag combat game if you want.
I've never seen the rocket tag combat game RPG before. Could you direct me to it so I can look for myself? My comment was specifically for sit down RPGs.
2E past level 7, 3.xE past level 11. Maybe you don't understand what 'rocket tag' is in this context. Rocket Tag is when the first person to hit wins. In the case of 2E after a cerain level the casters and the monsters were able to deal enough damage to cause a save versus death from massive damage which would cause instant death to a character. In 3.xE the casters and many monsters had save or die effects that instantly ended a combat.
Not to mention, in a game where people make thier own characters, imbalance actually leads to sameness. It's like in 3E, where every single warrior took shock trooper and was a charge build.
Having played 20+ fighters in 3e, I can say that no two of mine were ever the same and I never played the shock trooper build. Not everyone is a power gamer.
You've already admitted to heavily house ruling 3E, so forgive me if I take your comments about it with a grain of salt...
Generally people citing balance = boring aren't really talking about balance and are talking about other elements in the system. For instance, 4E isn't boring because it's balanced, it's boring because combats take too long. That has nothing to do wi
4e had multiple issues with it. It went too far down the road to balance and in the process, the way they chose to achieve that balance was itself boring. I don't confuse things that way. If I had meant to say that combat was boring, I would have said that combat was boring, not balance.
Well you said it yourself, the way they chose to achieve the balance was boring, not the balance itself. That's my point. You can't use one example of a balanced system and say that balance is automatically boring.
I don't believe an RPG can every be balanced. I am convinced that any attempt to do so will be boring. To date, there have been no balanced RPGs and every one that has been balanced past a certain point has been boring. There is nothing out there to show me that I'm wrong on this.
There are lots of rocket tag style RPGs. Riddle of Steel is probably the most infamous for being ridiculously deadly. 3E, and even D&DN, are often cited as being rocket-tag games, as can GURPS if you play standard humans agasint military weaponry. Rocket tag simply means that combat is often over in one blow and that winning initiative is very important.
That doesn't sound fun to me, so I'll chalk it up to boring
You're not the norm. Most people see one shock trooper fighter in the group and everyone else rushes to take the feat because they don't want to suck.
Having played with many, many different people in many different groups and not seeing that happen even once, I am going with the shock trooper not being the norm, either.
Other than 3.xE what RPGs have you played? I mean maybe you've played hundreds of RPGs and have lots of experience and can say that no RPG is balanced, but probably not...
Well you said it yourself, the way they chose to achieve the balance was boring, not the balance itself. That's my point. You can't use one example of a balanced system and say that balance is automatically boring.[/quote]I don't believe an RPG can e
Can you just cut to the chase and say the AEDU system? That's what made it boring?
Why would I say that? It wasn't AEDU. It was EVERY CLASS using AEDU. As well as the similarity in powers. I like separate systems. AEDU has a place among those systems.
I don't think that had anything to do with balance; your character was made unique by the class that you chose and the powers and abilities within that class - all feats were for was to give you perks and bonuses. Most things you were trying - with mixed levels of success - to do with feats in 3e were now class options or powers. I'm not sure that magic items were made any more limited in their role in the game for the sake of balance.
I think both were primarily for balance sake.
So, to just pull this out into the open and not dance around it - you think that casters and martial builds were balanced in 3e?
Not even close. The imbalance of 3e was not good. However, the game was so easy that even a purely martial group had a fairly easy time of it. 3e was too imbalanced. 4e was too balanced. So fare 5e is looking like it will be balanced somewhere in the middle of the two, which is where I think balance should be.
Moreover, the difficulty of the game is directly related to the opposition the DM throws at you.
I'm talking about the game as written, not the DM making things extra hard on the PCs in order to challenge them. If you follow the rules for encounters as they are written, the game is a cake walk. If the DM has to make the game extra hard, it's pretty much a house rule/home brew game that has no place in this discussion.
Actually Max if you follow the 3.xE rules for encounter creation, you can end up with a cake walk encounter or an assured TPK encounter...
Can you just cut to the chase and say the AEDU system? That's what made it boring?[/quote]Why would I say that? It wasn't AEDU. It was EVERY CLASS using AEDU. As well as the similarity in powers. I like separate systems. AEDU has a place among t
What I think some of the 4th ed players fail at comprehending is that the worst of 3.5 was horribly unbalanced but verall the system was alot of fun. Most of the time that was fixed in a real game to some extent by the DM. no you can't have shock trooper, no you can have natural spell, no you can't use divine metamagic, no you can't use timestop and dont abuse polymorph.
The fun in 3.5 that 4th ed completely failed at (from a 3.5 PoV) was the building a character part. If you wan't to min max a game destroying monstrosity in 3.5 you can do that if the DM has no problem with it. Most of the time though the DM would say no or play level 1-10 or E6 or some other houserule. Still not balanced as such but fun. The casual crowd usually did not have a problem with 3.5 as after seeing a few groups play they dd not know the power level of various spells and combos.
The fun part of 3.5 was running somethng like a high dex and intelligence based fighter which if built well could take on and defeat the 3.5 monsters in the MM. You could have fun with it. 3.5 usually worked best if the PCs kept the min.maxing within reason (actually most RPGs work best like this). That was the fun part of 3.5 anyway.
This is where the problems of AEDU come into it. The actual concept is a very good one. You could easily have an AEDU type class in 3.5 and no one would really care as 3.5 was very modular and there were some weird stuff in the splats anyway. They applied AEDU across the board though and the result of that was they sucked a huge amount of fun out of the game for those who liked 3.5. AEDU at least worked well though if you like that sort of thing. I would like an AEDU wizard, rogue and bard option in 3.5/Pathfinder being honest but not as a replacement (class varient or whatever). An AEDU Cleric/Druid.Wizard could do wonders in 3.XYZ depending on how it was implemented.
This is one reaosn I like SWSE so much. it removed the spellcasters from the game, used alot of the 4th ed style rules, and kept the parts from 3.5 we liked alot (my group and myself).
4th ed removed the best part of 3.5 for me and it was a large reason why I did not go for it and I hated the role structure more than the AEDU system which I only disliked instead of hated. Even then I only disliked it because it was applied across the board. One can construct something very similar to AEDU in SWSE and I am curently playing that in SWSE one of my players offered to run. Even then 4th ed had alot of pure gold in it that would be great to have in a 3.5 or d20 game.
AEDU is subjectively bad when applied across the board assuming you like 3.5 mechanics. Its more fun to play 3.XYZ than 4th ed if you like that sort of thing warts and all. The length of combat in 4th ed did not help as in a 4-5 hour session we were struggling to get 3-4 fights in and that would eat up most of the sessions time.
Thats the start of the edition war right there I think. 4th ed wasn't bad as such but it was different and they took away the fun part of 3.5 and replaced it with things that were subjectively not fun and were different. Throw in missing classes and races in the change over and you are going to have issues. 2nd ed to 3rd ed every 2nd ed PHB race and class made it over for example.
A blunt way of dealing with CoDzilla+ wizards is do a low magic world and outright ban those classes. A huge amount of problems 3.5 has kind of goes away at that point.
What I think some of the 4th ed players fail at comprehending is that the worst of 3.5 was horribly unbalanced but verall the system was alot of fun. Most of the time that was fixed in a real game to some extent by the DM. no you can't have shock tro
What I think some of the 4th ed players fail at comprehending is that the worst of 3.5 was horribly unbalanced but verall the system was alot of fun. Most of the time that was fixed in a real game to some extent by the DM. no you can't have shock trooper, no you can have natural spell, no you can't use divine metamagic, no you can't use timestop and dont abuse polymorph.
The fun in 3.5 that 4th ed completely failed at (from a 3.5 PoV) was the building a character part. If you wan't to min max a game destroying monstrosity in 3.5 you can do that if the DM has no problem with it. Most of the time though the DM would say no or play level 1-10 or E6 or some other houserule. Still not balanced as such but fun. The casual crowd usually did not have a problem with 3.5 as after seeing a few groups play they dd not know the power level of various spells and combos.
The fun part of 3.5 was running somethng like a high dex and intelligence based fighter which if built well could take on and defeat the 3.5 monsters in the MM. You could have fun with it. 3.5 usually worked best if the PCs kept the min.maxing within reason (actually most RPGs work best like this). That was the fun part of 3.5 anyway.
This is where the problems of AEDU come into it. The actual concept is a very good one. You could easily have an AEDU type class in 3.5 and no one would really care as 3.5 was very modular and there were some weird stuff in the splats anyway. They applied AEDU across the board though and the result of that was they sucked a huge amount of fun out of the game for those who liked 3.5. AEDU at least worked well though if you like that sort of thing. I would like an AEDU wizard, rogue and bard option in 3.5/Pathfinder being honest but not as a replacement (class varient or whatever). An AEDU Cleric/Druid.Wizard could do wonders in 3.XYZ depending on how it was implemented.
This is one reaosn I like SWSE so much. it removed the spellcasters from the game, used alot of the 4th ed style rules, and kept the parts from 3.5 we liked alot (my group and myself).
4th ed removed the best part of 3.5 for me and it was a large reason why I did not go for it and I hated the role structure more than the AEDU system which I only disliked instead of hated. Even then I only disliked it because it was applied across the board. One can construct something very similar to AEDU in SWSE and I am curently playing that in SWSE one of my players offered to run. Even then 4th ed had alot of pure gold in it that would be great to have in a 3.5 or d20 game.
AEDU is subjectively bad when applied across the board assuming you like 3.5 mechanics. Its more fun to play 3.XYZ than 4th ed if you like that sort of thing warts and all. The length of combat in 4th ed did not help as in a 4-5 hour session we were struggling to get 3-4 fights in and that would eat up most of the sessions time.
Thats the start of the edition war right there I think. 4th ed wasn't bad as such but it was different and they took away the fun part of 3.5 and replaced it with things that were subjectively not fun and were different. Throw in missing classes and races in the change over and you are going to have issues. 2nd ed to 3rd ed every 2nd ed PHB race and class made it over for example.
A blunt way of dealing with CoDzilla+ wizards is do a low magic world and outright ban those classes. A huge amount of problems 3.5 has kind of goes away at that point.
Actually most 4e players that I have seen have no problem with dropping AEDU for everyone. There are a few people that don't want it, but generally speaking I don't think anyone wants AEDU for everyone. What we do want is the option to play AEDU if we like it. We feel that you should be able to play the random feature list of 3.xE as well. We just want the option...
Actually most 4e players that I have seen have no problem with dropping AEDU for everyone. There are a few people that don't want it, but generally speaking I don't think anyone wants AEDU for everyone. What we do want is the option to play AEDU if w
See progress Lokiare. The only system that has come remotely close to this ideal is SWSE. 3.5 options, 4th ed mechanics= brilliant. SWSE isn't perfect mecahnically wither but its alot of fun and easily adapatable if you do not like the Star Wars Universe. Mass Effect is an easy adaption for example.
Some of those 4th ed ideas deserve to be recycled IMHO but D&DN is going with the burn the house down approach and build a new one.
The only reason I can think of for doing that is fears of the OGL as anything d20 based can be cloned. They cloned BECM so IDK how that works and I have been informed you could clone 4th ed as well. I think they could have done a simplified d20 based D&DN which would support 4th ed play and maybe appeal to older players as it is quick and easy.
I do not expect a clone of 3.5/4th but I think that those two groups are the biggest D&D customers left. They may be able to sell D&D to the masses but I have severe doubts about that as pen and paper RPGs are still a niche product at the end of the day.
See progress Lokiare. The only system that has come remotely close to this ideal is SWSE. 3.5 options, 4th ed mechanics= brilliant. SWSE isn't perfect mecahnically wither but its alot of fun and easily adapatable if you do not like the Star Wars Univ
Can you just cut to the chase and say the AEDU system? That's what made it boring? Sorry if I don't follow that. I can't tell you that you're wrong in finding that boring, but I simply cannot understand it. Each round, you have something tactically interesting to do. I don't find the management of such things to be a nessicary mini-game within D&D I suppose; I guess others do.
Count me as one of those that found AEDU to be extremely boring. I am glad we have mostly gotten away from it. Balanced classes are fine, but for me if they are AEDU, I am not signing on.
Count me as one of those that found AEDU to be extremely boring. I am glad we have mostly gotten away from it. Balanced classes are fine, but for me if they are AEDU, I am not signing on.
If that were so, you should point it out and possibly quote the definition of a straw man argument or the fallacy you are refuting, you know, use facts to prove or disprove things. That way the discussion can move forward...
The false strawman accusation was already pointed out you will note, and explained above. Someone else did it for me. If that is not good enough for you, there is a good book on philosophy called "will the center hold" which goes into fallacies in more detail.
So there is your exhibit A. Now you can move your discussion forward.
The misuse of fallacies on this site is epidemic. Since you are not at the moment citing one there is no reason to refute one, and going back in thread history to find them is something that is not worth anyone's time.
The false strawman accusation was already pointed out you will note, and explained above. Someone else did it for me. If that is not good enough for you, there is a good book on philosophy called "will the center hold" which goes into fallacies in
Maybe calling balance 'subjective' isn't the best term... but balance is certainly 'relative'.
e.g. Poison Resistance feat: in a campaign with lots of poison, it is very useful, but in a campaign with virtually no poison, it is nearly useless. How do you "balance" that with other feats in the game?
That's the point. Many things in D&D are situational (feats, class features, skills, etc.), and not strictly mathematical bonuses that always count for something in every campaign. You can't possibly balance everything.
The trick is to make the feat useful in more than a small niche area. For instance instead of poison resistance, have it called resistance and grant advantage on Con saves. Then it applies to a much larger group of players and is very hard to exclude (you would literally have to exclude a number of monsters and spells)...
I suppose, but it sounds too much like round-corners/childproofing to me: making every feat equal mathematically with every other feat so that people are automatically prevented from making "bad" choices.
The problem is that some of us want Poison Resistance, just as we have had it in the past (or whatever other specific feat/skill/etc.). We don't want a childproofed game. We want unique feats/skills/etc that allow us to realize the exact concept of our characters. For us, it isn't about the numbers, but the concepts.
You can do corner cases like this, but it makes balancing exponentially harder. As I said before you would have to run 4,000 automated number tests for each combination of monsters that characters of a certain level with certain options would encounter. Believe it or not without the fancy graphics a normal computer could probably run this in less than a few hours. Its something I've been advocating for quite a while, and its literally standard procedure for game software developers...
I have no problem with "balance" being an option in the game for gaming groups that seek to achieve it, but I don't like the idea of taking away the plethora of "corner cases" like Poison Resistance just because they may not be "good" choices from a mathematical perspective.
The real balancing act would be to provide a game that can do both: provide the option for near-perfect mathematical balance for those who want it, but also offer plenty of non-optimized "flavor" choices for those who don't (maybe mark them with an asterisk or something to let people know that they are not "sanitized for your protection").
Using phrases like "sanitized for your protection" is offensive, please don't use phrases like that.
But you get my point, right? You want all feats to be made more-or-less balanced with all other feats, so that there are no options that are not "mathematically beneficial" somehow, right?
What I'm saying is that I don't wan't a game that is "sanitized" in such a way.
If you want that, then I understand, and you should have what you want.
I want a game that is playable and doesn't have trap options. I'm not sure you understand what we are talking about here. There should never be an option that is obviously superior to another option in the same category.
I understand you perfectly. I just want a different game than you do (see below).
You can't actually do that unless you were to put them into modules. However as I said, you can put things like this into the game, but it makes balancing it harder. A good way for both of us to win would be to package it with something more universal. Like +2 to Constitution saves and advantage on poison saves. This way it is universally useful and you get poison resistance...
Well that's just one example. But what about things like a Linguist feat, or Knowledge skills? ...i.e. things that are not easily paired with some combat-related benefit.
Ideally if they belong in another category, they need to be put into another category. You should never have to make the choice of giving up effectiveness in one pillar to gain effectiveness in another. You shouldn't have to choose between a linguist feat and a multi-attack feat. You should be able to pick the Linguist background package instead of choosing the slum lord background package. You should be able to choose the multi-attack feat instead of the focused attack feat. Then those feats should be balanced between each other.
Again, we just want two very different games.
If I want to make a Rogue who spends all his time focusing on skills and feats that are not "automatically beneficial" or whatever (like Knowledge skills or Linguist feats) then I feel like I should absolutely have that right. And my Fighter friend can spend all his time focused on things that are beneficial to his fighting and whatnot. To me, that's what role-playing is all about when it comes to character building: being able to freely choose how I build my character, without any constraints placed on my choices that are designed the ensure "balance".
I have NO problem with a system in which players can CHOOSE to take options that are "equally optimized for combat" or whatever (and thus they can be "equal" with each other in that regard). But I DO have a problem with a system in which they are FORCED to do so.
On a related note, I REALLY dislike the "three pillars" philosophy of class design. My preferred philosophy instead is the "class triangle": Combat on one corner, Magic on one corner, and Skills on one corner. Every class falls somewhere on that triangle. I know that's not the direction that Next is going, but that's the kind of game that I prefer to play.
The trick is to make the feat useful in more than a small niche area. For instance instead of poison resistance, have it called resistance and grant advantage on Con saves. Then it applies to a much larger group of players and is very hard to exclude
I wish it would honestly, but so far it's decoupled skills from fighters.
Rogues get skills anyway and the casters get magic which can do anything.
The pillar thing is neat as a idea but so far it's utter fail for execution. Since the classes, specilaties, and backgrounds are all fairly inconsistent about which pillars they boost, and the combat capabilities of each class are the only pillar looking like they might be somewhat balanced eventually, it's gonna be only a few steps above 3e as far as class participation goes.
That said the point is that your trianlge doesn't really replace the pillars. The pillars are all about where your character has abilities, your triangle is more about what those abilities are.
I wish it would honestly, but so far it's decoupled skills from fighters.Rogues get skills anyway and the casters get magic which can do anything.The pillar thing is neat as a idea but so far it's utter fail for execution. Since the classes, specilat
What I think some of the 4th ed players fail at comprehending is that the worst of 3.5 was horribly unbalanced but verall the system was alot of fun. Most of the time that was fixed in a real game to some extent by the DM. no you can't have shock trooper, no you can have natural spell, no you can't use divine metamagic, no you can't use timestop and dont abuse polymorph.
The fun in 3.5 that 4th ed completely failed at (from a 3.5 PoV) was the building a character part. If you wan't to min max a game destroying monstrosity in 3.5 you can do that if the DM has no problem with it. Most of the time though the DM would say no or play level 1-10 or E6 or some other houserule. Still not balanced as such but fun. The casual crowd usually did not have a problem with 3.5 as after seeing a few groups play they dd not know the power level of various spells and combos.
The fun part of 3.5 was running somethng like a high dex and intelligence based fighter which if built well could take on and defeat the 3.5 monsters in the MM. You could have fun with it. 3.5 usually worked best if the PCs kept the min.maxing within reason (actually most RPGs work best like this). That was the fun part of 3.5 anyway.
This is where the problems of AEDU come into it. The actual concept is a very good one. You could easily have an AEDU type class in 3.5 and no one would really care as 3.5 was very modular and there were some weird stuff in the splats anyway. They applied AEDU across the board though and the result of that was they sucked a huge amount of fun out of the game for those who liked 3.5. AEDU at least worked well though if you like that sort of thing. I would like an AEDU wizard, rogue and bard option in 3.5/Pathfinder being honest but not as a replacement (class varient or whatever). An AEDU Cleric/Druid.Wizard could do wonders in 3.XYZ depending on how it was implemented.
This is one reaosn I like SWSE so much. it removed the spellcasters from the game, used alot of the 4th ed style rules, and kept the parts from 3.5 we liked alot (my group and myself).
4th ed removed the best part of 3.5 for me and it was a large reason why I did not go for it and I hated the role structure more than the AEDU system which I only disliked instead of hated. Even then I only disliked it because it was applied across the board. One can construct something very similar to AEDU in SWSE and I am curently playing that in SWSE one of my players offered to run. Even then 4th ed had alot of pure gold in it that would be great to have in a 3.5 or d20 game.
AEDU is subjectively bad when applied across the board assuming you like 3.5 mechanics. Its more fun to play 3.XYZ than 4th ed if you like that sort of thing warts and all. The length of combat in 4th ed did not help as in a 4-5 hour session we were struggling to get 3-4 fights in and that would eat up most of the sessions time.
Thats the start of the edition war right there I think. 4th ed wasn't bad as such but it was different and they took away the fun part of 3.5 and replaced it with things that were subjectively not fun and were different. Throw in missing classes and races in the change over and you are going to have issues. 2nd ed to 3rd ed every 2nd ed PHB race and class made it over for example.
A blunt way of dealing with CoDzilla+ wizards is do a low magic world and outright ban those classes. A huge amount of problems 3.5 has kind of goes away at that point.
Funny that. "um this game is great and fun and balanced except for the parts that aren't that we will just ban". Good way to evaluate a rule set.
Funny that. "um this game is great and fun and balanced except for the parts that aren't that we will just ban". Good way to evaluate a rule set.
See this statement is actually true. The key part that you need to include in most of your statements is this part "The way they chose to acheive that balance was itself boring." That indicates that they could choose another way to acheive balance that wouldn't be boring.
I include it when it's true and exclude it when it's not. I know the difference. You're the one who gets confused and conflates the two when I speak.
2E past level 7, 3.xE past level 11. Maybe you don't understand what 'rocket tag' is in this context. Rocket Tag is when the first person to hit wins. In the case of 2E after a cerain level the casters and the monsters were able to deal enough damage to cause a save versus death from massive damage which would cause instant death to a character. In 3.xE the casters and many monsters had save or die effects that instantly ended a combat.
That was not true in 2e at all. Save or die in 2e at high levels usually resulted in a successful save by the monster, resulting in several rounds of wasted actions by the wizard. Occasionally you would get lucky in round 1, but usually not. If your wizard relied on save or die in 2e, the rest of the party usually overcame the encounter without any contribution from you, or you succeeded when the monster was almost dead anyway, wasting that spell and all your previous spells.
In 3e, it was true if you played by RAW and allowed the casters to buy/make +x stat items and +x stat raisers. Without those, the DCs couldn't be raised to the stupidly high levels that made rocket tag work and spell casters functioned as they did in 1e and 2e. Mostly useless if they relied purely on save or die spells.
You've already admitted to heavily house ruling 3E, so forgive me if I take your comments about it with a grain of salt..
LOL No, Lokiare. YOU heavily house ruled your spell casters and other classes. I didn't. What I house ruled had nothing to do with fighter builds being viable.
I include it when it's true and exclude it when it's not. I know the difference. You're the one who gets confused and conflates the two when I speak. That was not true in 2e at all. Save or die in 2e at high levels usually resulted in a successfu
4e had multiple issues with it. It went too far down the road to balance and in the process, the way they chose to achieve that balance was itself boring. I don't confuse things that way. If I had meant to say that combat was boring, I would have said that combat was boring, not balance.
Well you said it yourself, the way they chose to achieve the balance was boring, not the balance itself. That's my point. You can't use one example of a balanced system and say that balance is automatically boring.
I don't believe an RPG can every be balanced. I am convinced that any attempt to do so will be boring. To date, there have been no balanced RPGs and every one that has been balanced past a certain point has been boring. There is nothing out there to show me that I'm wrong on this.
There are lots of rocket tag style RPGs. Riddle of Steel is probably the most infamous for being ridiculously deadly. 3E, and even D&DN, are often cited as being rocket-tag games, as can GURPS if you play standard humans agasint military weaponry. Rocket tag simply means that combat is often over in one blow and that winning initiative is very important.
That doesn't sound fun to me, so I'll chalk it up to boring
You're not the norm. Most people see one shock trooper fighter in the group and everyone else rushes to take the feat because they don't want to suck.
Having played with many, many different people in many different groups and not seeing that happen even once, I am going with the shock trooper not being the norm, either.
Other than 3.xE what RPGs have you played? I mean maybe you've played hundreds of RPGs and have lots of experience and can say that no RPG is balanced, but probably not...
I've played several, but not all of them. However, in all the years that I've been here, not one person has been able to point anyone to a balanced RPG. I'd say that this entire forum has all the RPGs out there covered.
Well you said it yourself, the way they chose to achieve the balance was boring, not the balance itself. That's my point. You can't use one example of a balanced system and say that balance is automatically boring.[/quote]I don't believe an RPG can e
What I think some of the 4th ed players fail at comprehending is that the worst of 3.5 was horribly unbalanced but verall the system was alot of fun. Most of the time that was fixed in a real game to some extent by the DM. no you can't have shock trooper, no you can have natural spell, no you can't use divine metamagic, no you can't use timestop and dont abuse polymorph.
The fun in 3.5 that 4th ed completely failed at (from a 3.5 PoV) was the building a character part. If you wan't to min max a game destroying monstrosity in 3.5 you can do that if the DM has no problem with it. Most of the time though the DM would say no or play level 1-10 or E6 or some other houserule. Still not balanced as such but fun. The casual crowd usually did not have a problem with 3.5 as after seeing a few groups play they dd not know the power level of various spells and combos.
The fun part of 3.5 was running somethng like a high dex and intelligence based fighter which if built well could take on and defeat the 3.5 monsters in the MM. You could have fun with it. 3.5 usually worked best if the PCs kept the min.maxing within reason (actually most RPGs work best like this). That was the fun part of 3.5 anyway.
This is where the problems of AEDU come into it. The actual concept is a very good one. You could easily have an AEDU type class in 3.5 and no one would really care as 3.5 was very modular and there were some weird stuff in the splats anyway. They applied AEDU across the board though and the result of that was they sucked a huge amount of fun out of the game for those who liked 3.5. AEDU at least worked well though if you like that sort of thing. I would like an AEDU wizard, rogue and bard option in 3.5/Pathfinder being honest but not as a replacement (class varient or whatever). An AEDU Cleric/Druid.Wizard could do wonders in 3.XYZ depending on how it was implemented.
This is one reaosn I like SWSE so much. it removed the spellcasters from the game, used alot of the 4th ed style rules, and kept the parts from 3.5 we liked alot (my group and myself).
4th ed removed the best part of 3.5 for me and it was a large reason why I did not go for it and I hated the role structure more than the AEDU system which I only disliked instead of hated. Even then I only disliked it because it was applied across the board. One can construct something very similar to AEDU in SWSE and I am curently playing that in SWSE one of my players offered to run. Even then 4th ed had alot of pure gold in it that would be great to have in a 3.5 or d20 game.
AEDU is subjectively bad when applied across the board assuming you like 3.5 mechanics. Its more fun to play 3.XYZ than 4th ed if you like that sort of thing warts and all. The length of combat in 4th ed did not help as in a 4-5 hour session we were struggling to get 3-4 fights in and that would eat up most of the sessions time.
Thats the start of the edition war right there I think. 4th ed wasn't bad as such but it was different and they took away the fun part of 3.5 and replaced it with things that were subjectively not fun and were different. Throw in missing classes and races in the change over and you are going to have issues. 2nd ed to 3rd ed every 2nd ed PHB race and class made it over for example.
A blunt way of dealing with CoDzilla+ wizards is do a low magic world and outright ban those classes. A huge amount of problems 3.5 has kind of goes away at that point.
That about sums it up; I have no problem at all with AEDU classes in 5th Ed, I just don't want every class straightjacketed into it.
That about sums it up; I have no problem at all with AEDU classes in 5th Ed, I just don't want every class straightjacketed into it.
This is one reaosn I like SWSE so much. it removed the spellcasters from the game, used alot of the 4th ed style rules, and kept the parts from 3.5 we liked alot (my group and myself).
Yeah, SWSE more or less combines the best aspects of 3.5 and 4E, while managing to avoid the aspects of each of those games that seem to create the most angst (i.e. insanely powerful spellcasters from 3.5 and mandatory AEDU from 4E).
4th ed removed the best part of 3.5 for me and it was a large reason why I did not go for it and I hated the role structure more than the AEDU system which I only disliked instead of hated. Even then I only disliked it because it was applied across the board. One can construct something very similar to AEDU in SWSE and I am curently playing that in SWSE one of my players offered to run.
Yes, the talent tree system is IMO the best thing that WotC ever did: If you want AEDU, then the talent tree system can provide it for you. On the other hand, if you do not want AEDU, then you never have to have it. Pleasing both groups without having to make separate classes for each build style is a win-win... possibly the biggest no-brainer ever.
Why WotC decided not to do the same thing with 4E (or 5E) is beyond me. It's like hitting a home run (with the talent tree system in SWSE), but then turning around and arguing with the umpire. It's insane, and is one of the main reasons why I have pretty much no faith in WotC anymore.
Thats the start of the edition war right there I think. 4th ed wasn't bad as such but it was different and they took away the fun part of 3.5 and replaced it with things that were subjectively not fun and were different. Throw in missing classes and races in the change over and you are going to have issues. 2nd ed to 3rd ed every 2nd ed PHB race and class made it over for example.
Agreed.
Yeah, SWSE more or less combines the best aspects of 3.5 and 4E, while managing to avoid the aspects of each of those games that seem to create the most angst (i.e. insanely powerful spellcasters from 3.5 and mandatory AEDU from 4E).Yes, the talent t
I wish it would honestly, but so far it's decoupled skills from fighters.
Rogues get skills anyway and the casters get magic which can do anything.
Can't you customize your background, and thus get 4 skills of your choosing?
Which you already have.
Uh... what?
Which you already have in what?
Can't you customize your background, and thus get 4 skills of your choosing?[/quote]Which you already have.[/quote]Uh... what?Which you already have in what?
I wish it would honestly, but so far it's decoupled skills from fighters.
Rogues get skills anyway and the casters get magic which can do anything.
Can't you customize your background, and thus get 4 skills of your choosing?
Which you already have.
Uh... what?
Which you already have in what?
I am thinking (hoping) that Feats and Skills will be optional, not get in the way of improvised Ability checks.
Can't you customize your background, and thus get 4 skills of your choosing?[/quote]Which you already have.[/quote]Uh... what?Which you already have in what?[/quote]I am thinking (hoping) that Feats and Skills will be optional, not get in the way of
I wish it would honestly, but so far it's decoupled skills from fighters.
Rogues get skills anyway and the casters get magic which can do anything.
Can't you customize your background, and thus get 4 skills of your choosing?
Which you already have.
Uh... what?
Which you already have in what?
I am thinking (hoping) that Feats and Skills will be optional, not get in the way of improvised Ability checks.
Uh ok.
But going back to my question, can't you customize your background in Next, which allows you to pick any 4 skills? Or are there restrictions for the skills you can pick based on your class?
That's what I am asking.
Can't you customize your background, and thus get 4 skills of your choosing?[/quote]Which you already have.[/quote]Uh... what?Which you already have in what?[/quote]I am thinking (hoping) that Feats and Skills will be optional, not get in the way of
But going back to my question, can't you customize your background in Next, which allows you to pick any 4 skills?
Yes, you can.
Or are there restrictions for the skills you can pick based on your class?
Nope.
Ok, that's what I thought. So that decouples skills from classes.
And this is what I was saying about the new system departing from the "class triangle" that I like so much. In other words, in the "class triangle" system, the amount of skills that a particular class got (i.e. how close that class was to the Skills corner of the triangle) was a key part of what represented the differences in the classes. So for example, Rangers didn't get all those combat feats that the Fighter got, but instead they got more skills. I LOVE that.
I greatly prefer that kind of system because I like that it sets the "skill classes" apart in this way, but the new system has thrown that out the window. If everyone can get those skills now, then I feel like it cheapens what it means to be a Rogue/Ranger/etc.
Yes, you can.Nope. [/quote]Ok, that's what I thought. So that decouples skills from classes.And this is what I was saying about the new system departing from the "class triangle" that I like so much. In other words, in the "class triangle" system, th
Funny thing is alot of the good things in D&DN can easily be houseruled into 3.5 and 4th ed.
Background easy you just throw out class skills, advantage/disadvantage is very easy, concnetration mechanic for cleircs takes care of buff spells in 3.5. Rewrite a few spells and you can squeeze in words of power as well.
Funny thing is alot of the good things in D&DN can easily be houseruled into 3.5 and 4th ed. Background easy you just throw out class skills, advantage/disadvantage is very easy, concnetration mechanic for cleircs takes care of buff spells in 3.5. Re
What I think some of the 4th ed players fail at comprehending is that the worst of 3.5 was horribly unbalanced but verall the system was alot of fun. Most of the time that was fixed in a real game to some extent by the DM. no you can't have shock trooper, no you can have natural spell, no you can't use divine metamagic, no you can't use timestop and dont abuse polymorph.
The fun in 3.5 that 4th ed completely failed at (from a 3.5 PoV) was the building a character part. If you wan't to min max a game destroying monstrosity in 3.5 you can do that if the DM has no problem with it. Most of the time though the DM would say no or play level 1-10 or E6 or some other houserule. Still not balanced as such but fun. The casual crowd usually did not have a problem with 3.5 as after seeing a few groups play they dd not know the power level of various spells and combos.
The fun part of 3.5 was running somethng like a high dex and intelligence based fighter which if built well could take on and defeat the 3.5 monsters in the MM. You could have fun with it. 3.5 usually worked best if the PCs kept the min.maxing within reason (actually most RPGs work best like this). That was the fun part of 3.5 anyway.
This is where the problems of AEDU come into it. The actual concept is a very good one. You could easily have an AEDU type class in 3.5 and no one would really care as 3.5 was very modular and there were some weird stuff in the splats anyway. They applied AEDU across the board though and the result of that was they sucked a huge amount of fun out of the game for those who liked 3.5. AEDU at least worked well though if you like that sort of thing. I would like an AEDU wizard, rogue and bard option in 3.5/Pathfinder being honest but not as a replacement (class varient or whatever). An AEDU Cleric/Druid.Wizard could do wonders in 3.XYZ depending on how it was implemented.
This is one reaosn I like SWSE so much. it removed the spellcasters from the game, used alot of the 4th ed style rules, and kept the parts from 3.5 we liked alot (my group and myself).
4th ed removed the best part of 3.5 for me and it was a large reason why I did not go for it and I hated the role structure more than the AEDU system which I only disliked instead of hated. Even then I only disliked it because it was applied across the board. One can construct something very similar to AEDU in SWSE and I am curently playing that in SWSE one of my players offered to run. Even then 4th ed had alot of pure gold in it that would be great to have in a 3.5 or d20 game.
AEDU is subjectively bad when applied across the board assuming you like 3.5 mechanics. Its more fun to play 3.XYZ than 4th ed if you like that sort of thing warts and all. The length of combat in 4th ed did not help as in a 4-5 hour session we were struggling to get 3-4 fights in and that would eat up most of the sessions time.
Thats the start of the edition war right there I think. 4th ed wasn't bad as such but it was different and they took away the fun part of 3.5 and replaced it with things that were subjectively not fun and were different. Throw in missing classes and races in the change over and you are going to have issues. 2nd ed to 3rd ed every 2nd ed PHB race and class made it over for example.
A blunt way of dealing with CoDzilla+ wizards is do a low magic world and outright ban those classes. A huge amount of problems 3.5 has kind of goes away at that point.
Funny that. "um this game is great and fun and balanced except for the parts that aren't that we will just ban". Good way to evaluate a rule set.
Ever considered that is part of the fun? A modular d20 system houseruled to how you like it?
Funny that. "um this game is great and fun and balanced except for the parts that aren't that we will just ban". Good way to evaluate a rule set. [/quote]Ever considered that is part of the fun? A modular d20 system houseruled to how you like it?
YEs backgrounds provide skills, however, the rogue gets a free background from his class abilities, both the wizard and cleric have access to magic which can do anything and thus is the same as having skills.
So of the '4 core' classes only the fighter is without skills or a skill substitute.
Furthermore that's not inherent to the pillar system, that's a result of poor class design, and not having a defined relationship between class and pillar. It would be just as easy to create skilless fighters with the triangle.
YEs backgrounds provide skills, however, the rogue gets a free background from his class abilities, both the wizard and cleric have access to magic which can do anything and thus is the same as having skills.So of the '4 core' classes only the fighte
I just don't think they have figured out how to help the fighter out. Maybe the chosen style can give some sort of bonus or skill on various checks. A rake gets cha checks and skills, a swashbuckler gets dex based ones etc.
Leaning towards fighters get the **** pumpkin award again a'la 3.0.
I just don't think they have figured out how to help the fighter out. Maybe the chosen style can give some sort of bonus or skill on various checks. A rake gets cha checks and skills, a swashbuckler gets dex based ones etc. Leaning towards fighters g
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />And this is what I was saying about the new system departing from the "class triangle" that I like so much. In other words, in the "class triangle" system, the amount of skills that a particular class got (i.e. how close that class was to the Skills corner of the triangle) was a key part of what represented the differences in the classes. So for example, Rangers didn't get all those combat feats that the Fighter got, but instead they got more skills. I LOVE that.
I greatly prefer that kind of system because I like that it sets the "skill classes" apart in this way, but the new system has thrown that out the window. If everyone can get those skills now, then I feel like it cheapens what it means to be a Rogue/Ranger/etc.
I hate having "skill classes." In my opinion all that does is support this stereotype that rogues have to suck at combat and fighters are nothing more than big dumb armored ogres with no talent beyond "HULK SMASH!"
Meanwhile wizards get divinations, evocations, transmutations, illusions, enchantments, conjurations, abjurations and necromancy just by being wizards. Oh and on top of this people want him to have knowledge skills first.
The idea of having "skills classes" is just another way to take more things away from the fighter.
I hate having "skill classes." In my opinion all that does is support this stereotype that rogues have to suck at combat and fighters are nothing more than big dumb armored ogres with no talent beyond "HULK SMASH!" Meanwhile wizards get divinations,
The "fighters are only good at fighting" thing also classhes with the "literature" that inspires much of D&D, and a lot of the in game stuff. Why do so many kings train their sons to be fighters? It basically means they will suck at statecraft compaired to those that use a different training regimin.
The "fighters are only good at fighting" thing also classhes with the "literature" that inspires much of D&D, and a lot of the in game stuff. Why do so many kings train their sons to be fighters? It basically means they will suck at statecraft compai
Ever considered that is part of the fun? A modular d20 system houseruled to how you like it?
If I want a "do-it-yourself RPG kit" I'll buy a do-it-yourself kit.
If I want a complete product that with only very minor changes I can have a game both me and my players can enjoy, I'll buy that instead.
If you have to make sweeping, major houserules and fixes to a game, guess which one of those two categories the game falls into...
If I want a "do-it-yourself RPG kit" I'll buy a do-it-yourself kit.If I want a complete product that with only very minor changes I can have a game both me and my players can enjoy, I'll buy that instead.If you have to make sweeping, major houserules
Ever considered that is part of the fun? A modular d20 system houseruled to how you like it?
If I want a "do-it-yourself RPG kit" I'll buy a do-it-yourself kit.
If I want a complete product that with only very minor changes I can have a game both me and my players can enjoy, I'll buy that instead.
If you have to make sweeping, major houserules and fixes to a game, guess which one of those two categories the game falls into...
D&D has always been about houserules because guess what everyone wants something different. 4th ed built a red box and it was a very good box. I wanted a purple box though.
If I want a "do-it-yourself RPG kit" I'll buy a do-it-yourself kit.If I want a complete product that with only very minor changes I can have a game both me and my players can enjoy, I'll buy that instead.If you have to make sweeping, major houserules
Ever considered that is part of the fun? A modular d20 system houseruled to how you like it?
If I want a "do-it-yourself RPG kit" I'll buy a do-it-yourself kit.
If I want a complete product that with only very minor changes I can have a game both me and my players can enjoy, I'll buy that instead.
If you have to make sweeping, major houserules and fixes to a game, guess which one of those two categories the game falls into...
D&D has always been about houserules because guess what everyone wants something different. 4th ed built a red box and it was a very good box. I wanted a purple box though.
Have what 200 different game mechanic modules and be anything and everything to everyone? It's going to be impossible to make balanced encounters and published adventures for.
If I want a "do-it-yourself RPG kit" I'll buy a do-it-yourself kit.If I want a complete product that with only very minor changes I can have a game both me and my players can enjoy, I'll buy that instead.If you have to make sweeping, major houserules
For the longest time people believed Aristotle's idea that things fell and rose based on their elemental affinities, and sought out a proper level.
THe idea of a force that pulled bodies together was not met with all open arms.
For the longest time people believed Aristotle's idea that things fell and rose based on their elemental affinities, and sought out a proper level.THe idea of a force that pulled bodies together was not met with all open arms.
Ok when you say the existance of gravity be very very careful, I will be the first to agree that we don't understand gravity completely, or even as much as we like to think. However I'm pretty sure the observational evidence is pretty clear that mass attracts mass and the force of this attraction is labled the force of gravity. So which part of that is supposed to not exist.
And steely forgive me but do let me in on the joke.
Ok when you say the existance of gravity be very very careful, I will be the first to agree that we don't understand gravity completely, or even as much as we like to think. However I'm pretty sure the observational evidence is pretty clear that mass
Ok when you say the existance of gravity be very very careful, I will be the first to agree that we don't understand gravity completely, or even as much as we like to think. However I'm pretty sure the observational evidence is pretty clear that mass attracts mass and the force of this attraction is labled the force of gravity. So which part of that is supposed to not exist.
And steely forgive me but do let me in on the joke.
The argument is that there is no force that causes the attraction at all, but merely a warping of space-time that causes smaller objects to move towards larger ones.
It isn't getting much traction, but the argument is being rehashed (it is not a new thought experiment) now that gravity has been found to move at the speed of light.
The argument is that there is no force that causes the attraction at all, but merely a warping of space-time that causes smaller objects to move towards larger ones.It isn't getting much traction, but the argument is being rehashed (it is not a new t
I wouldn't use the word move that way in regards to gravity.
Interesting idea, however that does not render the phenomena commonly labled as gravity subjective, it applies whether you believe in it or not.
I wouldn't use the word move that way in regards to gravity.Interesting idea, however that does not render the phenomena commonly labled as gravity subjective, it applies whether you believe in it or not.
I wouldn't use the word move that way in regards to gravity.
Interesting idea, however that does not render the phenomena commonly labled as gravity subjective, it applies whether you believe in it or not.
If gravity is not a force, than in a real way it doesn't exist. Something else does, and what we call gravity is simply an effect of that other "thing".
If gravity is not a force, than in a real way it doesn't exist. Something else does, and what we call gravity is simply an effect of that other "thing".
Ok when you say the existance of gravity be very very careful, I will be the first to agree that we don't understand gravity completely, or even as much as we like to think. However I'm pretty sure the observational evidence is pretty clear that mass attracts mass and the force of this attraction is labled the force of gravity. So which part of that is supposed to not exist.
And steely forgive me but do let me in on the joke.
Not necessarily true.
We're drawing a conclusion based on observational evidence of something we have not yet observed. Meaning, we're concluding Gravity exists because we've observed the proverbial apple fall. This causes several problems.
1. We're making the very likely false assumption that our senses can perceive all that there is.
2. We're drawing conclusions about a "Force" which we cannot directly test.
It's entirely possible that "Gravity" is the result of some particle or type of energy that we are completely unaware of because it falls outside of the boundaries of any of our senses.
What I mean is: Imagine a blind cavefish, place him in a bowl with a red piece of cloth. He'll perceive the cloth, he'll perceive it's texture, but he won't perceive it's color. He'll never be aware of the existance of color. Similiarly, he might even be able to perceive the heat from a ray of light, but the ray of light won't exist for him.
It's quite possible that Gravity is the same for Humans, we're infering it's existance by observations that fall within the realm of our senses, but it could easily be the case where Gravity is a facet of some as yet unobservable particle or type of energy.
We also have already proven that we can violate mass attracts mass, just a simple static electricity charge can cause a piece of paper to levitate. Which is an indicator that it's possible that electricity is acting upon some other factor.
I'm not sayin Gravity doesn't exist, I'm just saying that IMO there's alot more to it.
Not necessarily true.We're drawing a conclusion based on observational evidence of something we have not yet observed. Meaning, we're concluding Gravity exists because we've observed the proverbial apple fall. This causes several problems.1. We'r
Well yeah obviously we don't understand the phenomenon fully, however it does apply whether you believe in it or not. If a 'non-force' thinker, me, someone who believed in aristotle's view, and a delusional person who whole heartedly believes gravity is an illusion get thrown off a cliff we all go splat.
Well yeah obviously we don't understand the phenomenon fully, however it does apply whether you believe in it or not. If a 'non-force' thinker, me, someone who believed in aristotle's view, and a delusional person who whole heartedly believes gravity
Maybe calling balance 'subjective' isn't the best term... but balance is certainly 'relative'.
e.g. Poison Resistance feat: in a campaign with lots of poison, it is very useful, but in a campaign with virtually no poison, it is nearly useless. How do you "balance" that with other feats in the game?
That's the point. Many things in D&D are situational (feats, class features, skills, etc.), and not strictly mathematical bonuses that always count for something in every campaign. You can't possibly balance everything.
The trick is to make the feat useful in more than a small niche area. For instance instead of poison resistance, have it called resistance and grant advantage on Con saves. Then it applies to a much larger group of players and is very hard to exclude (you would literally have to exclude a number of monsters and spells)...
I suppose, but it sounds too much like round-corners/childproofing to me: making every feat equal mathematically with every other feat so that people are automatically prevented from making "bad" choices.
The problem is that some of us want Poison Resistance, just as we have had it in the past (or whatever other specific feat/skill/etc.). We don't want a childproofed game. We want unique feats/skills/etc that allow us to realize the exact concept of our characters. For us, it isn't about the numbers, but the concepts.
You can do corner cases like this, but it makes balancing exponentially harder. As I said before you would have to run 4,000 automated number tests for each combination of monsters that characters of a certain level with certain options would encounter. Believe it or not without the fancy graphics a normal computer could probably run this in less than a few hours. Its something I've been advocating for quite a while, and its literally standard procedure for game software developers...
I have no problem with "balance" being an option in the game for gaming groups that seek to achieve it, but I don't like the idea of taking away the plethora of "corner cases" like Poison Resistance just because they may not be "good" choices from a mathematical perspective.
The real balancing act would be to provide a game that can do both: provide the option for near-perfect mathematical balance for those who want it, but also offer plenty of non-optimized "flavor" choices for those who don't (maybe mark them with an asterisk or something to let people know that they are not "sanitized for your protection").
Using phrases like "sanitized for your protection" is offensive, please don't use phrases like that.
But you get my point, right? You want all feats to be made more-or-less balanced with all other feats, so that there are no options that are not "mathematically beneficial" somehow, right?
What I'm saying is that I don't wan't a game that is "sanitized" in such a way.
If you want that, then I understand, and you should have what you want.
I want a game that is playable and doesn't have trap options. I'm not sure you understand what we are talking about here. There should never be an option that is obviously superior to another option in the same category.
I understand you perfectly. I just want a different game than you do (see below).
You can't actually do that unless you were to put them into modules. However as I said, you can put things like this into the game, but it makes balancing it harder. A good way for both of us to win would be to package it with something more universal. Like +2 to Constitution saves and advantage on poison saves. This way it is universally useful and you get poison resistance...
Well that's just one example. But what about things like a Linguist feat, or Knowledge skills? ...i.e. things that are not easily paired with some combat-related benefit.
Ideally if they belong in another category, they need to be put into another category. You should never have to make the choice of giving up effectiveness in one pillar to gain effectiveness in another. You shouldn't have to choose between a linguist feat and a multi-attack feat. You should be able to pick the Linguist background package instead of choosing the slum lord background package. You should be able to choose the multi-attack feat instead of the focused attack feat. Then those feats should be balanced between each other.
Again, we just want two very different games.
If I want to make a Rogue who spends all his time focusing on skills and feats that are not "automatically beneficial" or whatever (like Knowledge skills or Linguist feats) then I feel like I should absolutely have that right. And my Fighter friend can spend all his time focused on things that are beneficial to his fighting and whatnot. To me, that's what role-playing is all about when it comes to character building: being able to freely choose how I build my character, without any constraints placed on my choices that are designed the ensure "balance".
Except those feats and skills are useful, and would it really hurt if you were to choose Linguist and it came prepackaged with a social skill or something like that?
Unfortunately every edition of D&D had constraints placed on your choices that were designed to ensure 'balance'. They just didn't understand how balance works...
I have NO problem with a system in which players can CHOOSE to take options that are "equally optimized for combat" or whatever (and thus they can be "equal" with each other in that regard). But I DO have a problem with a system in which they are FORCED to do so.
I don't have a problem with allowing players to give up combat features for social or exploration benefits, but each of the pillars bleeds into each other, so why not take advantage of that?
You could get an feat that grants a bonus to intimidate or bluff during combat, while at the same time granting some kind of exploration bonus and at the same time allows bonuses for intimidate and bluff in social situations.
On a related note, I REALLY dislike the "three pillars" philosophy of class design. My preferred philosophy instead is the "class triangle": Combat on one corner, Magic on one corner, and Skills on one corner. Every class falls somewhere on that triangle. I know that's not the direction that Next is going, but that's the kind of game that I prefer to play.
That's exactly how they are designing the system right now. The Fighter is firmly next to the combat corner of the triangle. The Rogue is a big circle around the whole triangle, the Wizard is close to the exploration and social corners. The Cleric is in the social and combat corners...
The trick is to make the feat useful in more than a small niche area. For instance instead of poison resistance, have it called resistance and grant advantage on Con saves. Then it applies to a much larger group of players and is very hard to exclude
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />And this is what I was saying about the new system departing from the "class triangle" that I like so much. In other words, in the "class triangle" system, the amount of skills that a particular class got (i.e. how close that class was to the Skills corner of the triangle) was a key part of what represented the differences in the classes. So for example, Rangers didn't get all those combat feats that the Fighter got, but instead they got more skills. I LOVE that.
I greatly prefer that kind of system because I like that it sets the "skill classes" apart in this way, but the new system has thrown that out the window. If everyone can get those skills now, then I feel like it cheapens what it means to be a Rogue/Ranger/etc.
I hate having "skill classes." In my opinion all that does is support this stereotype that rogues have to suck at combat and fighters are nothing more than big dumb armored ogres with no talent beyond "HULK SMASH!"
But wizards suck at martial combat, and fighters suck at magic. Skill classes do not enforce those "stereotypes" at all. They are just simply the third corner of the triangle.
If I want a "hulk-smash" fighter who doesn't want to spend his time doing anything else, then I should be able to do that. If instead I want him to have a little magic or some skills, then I will just multiclass with classes that grant those things. That's the beauty of it: everyone can do exactly what they want conceptually. The key to this is keeping all of these things clearly separate, and then people can choose whether or not to combine them as they see fit. If, on the other hand, you bleed them together from the start, then those of us who want them separate are out of luck.
Meanwhile wizards get divinations, evocations, transmutations, illusions, enchantments, conjurations, abjurations and necromancy just by being wizards. Oh and on top of this people want him to have knowledge skills first.
The idea of having "skills classes" is just another way to take more things away from the fighter.
That is nonsense. It's like saying that having "combat classes" is just a way to take things from the Rogue.
The problem is that people want to have their cake and eat it too. They play a Fighter, and then get jealous that the Rogue has a bunch of nifty skills. But that's the point of the Rogue class, just as point of the Fighter class is to get a bunch of nifty feats/maneuvers.
If someone wants more skills than their current class provides, then play a "skill class" instead... or simply multiclass Ftr/Rog. In other words, there should be a trade-off: more skills = less combat feats... or vice-versa.
Furthermore, I have no problem with designing the game to keep Fighters and Wizards relatively equal in their power level (martial combat vs. magic). Having "skill classes" in the game doesn't prevent this in any way whatsoever. And skills can be just as useful as combat or magic, depending on your campaign.
In other words, skills are to the "skill classes" as combat feats/maneuvers are to the Fighter, and as spells are to the Wizard. At least that's how it works in my games, and exactly how I want it to work. My players love this, and we definitely wouldn't have it any other way.
As I said, if someone wants to add a slew of combat feats to their Rogue's repertoire, then they can multiclass with Fighter. Likewise, if they want to add a slew of skills to their Fighter's repertoire, then they can multiclass with Rogue. Simple as that. And then for those who want their Fighter to mainly do only combat stuff, and their Rogue to mainly do only skill stuff, then they can do that too.
The alternative (which Next seems to have adopted) is stripping the "skill classes" of their special/exclusive access to a lot of skills, which leads to the question of what to do with the Rogue (and likewise Ranger and Bard, since getting more skills was part of what set them apart too). As it stands in the playtest Rogues have more-or-less just become a special type of Fighter, which seems utterly ridiculous and it completely changes the concepts around which our Rogue characters are built. It's not our D&D anymore.
I hate having "skill classes." In my opinion all that does is support this stereotype that rogues have to suck at combat and fighters are nothing more than big dumb armored ogres with no talent beyond "HULK SMASH!"[/quote]But wizards suck at martial
If I want to make a Rogue who spends all his time focusing on skills and feats that are not "automatically beneficial" or whatever (like Knowledge skills or Linguist feats) then I feel like I should absolutely have that right. And my Fighter friend can spend all his time focused on things that are beneficial to his fighting and whatnot. To me, that's what role-playing is all about when it comes to character building: being able to freely choose how I build my character, without any constraints placed on my choices that are designed the ensure "balance".
Except those feats and skills are useful, and would it really hurt if you were to choose Linguist and it came prepackaged with a social skill or something like that?
It would as far as it is forcing concepts on our characters that we do not want. If I just want feat/skill X, then I shouldn't be forced to take Y also. If I can choose to, then fine. But forcing me to do so in attempt to "balance" the game only makes me dislike "balancing" the game.
I have NO problem with a system in which players can CHOOSE to take options that are "equally optimized for combat" or whatever (and thus they can be "equal" with each other in that regard). But I DO have a problem with a system in which they are FORCED to do so.
I don't have a problem with allowing players to give up combat features for social or exploration benefits, but each of the pillars bleeds into each other, so why not take advantage of that?
Well, if they bleed into each other, as you say, then they are not very good pillars. They should be entirely distinct from each other, and characters shouldn't be forced to have them overlap at all, if they don't want to. They can still choose to have things from multiple "pillars", but it should ABSOLUTELY never be required.
You could get an feat that grants a bonus to intimidate or bluff during combat, while at the same time granting some kind of exploration bonus and at the same time allows bonuses for intimidate and bluff in social situations.
If you want something like that, then fine. But if I don't want to have to take something that is "explorative" just because I can intimidate in combat then I definitely shouldn't have to. That's the difference.
On a related note, I REALLY dislike the "three pillars" philosophy of class design. My preferred philosophy instead is the "class triangle": Combat on one corner, Magic on one corner, and Skills on one corner. Every class falls somewhere on that triangle. I know that's not the direction that Next is going, but that's the kind of game that I prefer to play.
That's exactly how they are designing the system right now. The Fighter is firmly next to the combat corner of the triangle. The Rogue is a big circle around the whole triangle, the Wizard is close to the exploration and social corners.
But that's very different than the triangle that we like. Our triangle is Combat-Magic-Skills, not Combat-Social-Exploration. My Wizard focuses exclusively on magic, and isn't social or explorative at all.
Except those feats and skills are useful, and would it really hurt if you were to choose Linguist and it came prepackaged with a social skill or something like that?[/quote]It would as far as it is forcing concepts on our characters that we do not wa
PEople disagreed about gravity, doens't make that subjective.
So you're saying there is only one way to use alignments? I mean, gravity only works in one way, and since you brought up the gravity comparison...
And gravity is a little different from alignments in a rpg, dontcha think? I believe any reasonable, intelligent person would see the difference.
So you're saying there is only one way to use alignments?I mean, gravity only works in one way, and since you brought up the gravity comparison...And gravity is a little different from alignments in a rpg, dontcha think?I believe any reasonable, inte
This is an internet forum, there are no reasonable intelligent people here.
I'm not saying there isn't more than one way to use alignment, I'm saying that by trying to do 4 things at once the mechanical aspects of the alignment system have caused problems, and that it would solve these problems if we streamlined the system, and optomized it to do one thing well.
This is an internet forum, there are no reasonable intelligent people here.I'm not saying there isn't more than one way to use alignment, I'm saying that by trying to do 4 things at once the mechanical aspects of the alignment system have caused prob
PEople disagreed about gravity, doens't make that subjective.
Nobody disagrees about gravity. They might disagree about its origins.
People do disagree about evolution and that is not subjective. But balance does not fall in that realm. It is not a concept like gravity, or evolution. It is utterly subjective.
If people argue against gravity they are wrong. if people argue against evolution they are wrong. If people argue against balance they have a different viewpoint on a theory that is not scientific like the Law of gravity or the Theory of evolution.
When balance gets tested again and again and again and the results indisputably show it makes a better game, you can compare it to gravity or evolution. When I refer to balance I am talking about it on the fidelity level of say 4e style vs. 3rd vs. AD&D. Balance is necessary. It is the degree of that balance needed which is subjective.
Nobody disagrees about gravity. They might disagree about its origins.People do disagree about evolution and that is not subjective. But balance does not fall in that realm. It is not a concept like gravity, or evolution. It is utterly subjective
I'm not sayin Gravity doesn't exist, I'm just saying that IMO there's alot more to it.
Gravity is the weakest of all the forces, its effects are well understood, its origin is not. It does not make it a good proxy for balance.
a common theory is that gravity is a strong force on another membrane that is just residually reaching ours and that is what makes it such a weak force.
It DOES however effect bodies at the speed of light like the strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force.
Gravity is the weakest of all the forces, its effects are well understood, its origin is not. It does not make it a good proxy for balance. a common theory is that gravity is a strong force on another membrane that is just residually reaching ours
Ok when you say the existance of gravity be very very careful, I will be the first to agree that we don't understand gravity completely, or even as much as we like to think. However I'm pretty sure the observational evidence is pretty clear that mass attracts mass and the force of this attraction is labled the force of gravity. So which part of that is supposed to not exist.
And steely forgive me but do let me in on the joke.
Not necessarily true.
We're drawing a conclusion based on observational evidence of something we have not yet observed. Meaning, we're concluding Gravity exists because we've observed the proverbial apple fall. This causes several problems.
1. We're making the very likely false assumption that our senses can perceive all that there is.
2. We're drawing conclusions about a "Force" which we cannot directly test.
It's entirely possible that "Gravity" is the result of some particle or type of energy that we are completely unaware of because it falls outside of the boundaries of any of our senses.
What I mean is: Imagine a blind cavefish, place him in a bowl with a red piece of cloth. He'll perceive the cloth, he'll perceive it's texture, but he won't perceive it's color. He'll never be aware of the existance of color. Similiarly, he might even be able to perceive the heat from a ray of light, but the ray of light won't exist for him.
It's quite possible that Gravity is the same for Humans, we're infering it's existance by observations that fall within the realm of our senses, but it could easily be the case where Gravity is a facet of some as yet unobservable particle or type of energy.
We also have already proven that we can violate mass attracts mass, just a simple static electricity charge can cause a piece of paper to levitate. Which is an indicator that it's possible that electricity is acting upon some other factor.
I'm not sayin Gravity doesn't exist, I'm just saying that IMO there's alot more to it.
The mass is still attracting the other mass though. It's just that the electrostatic forces are stronger. Which is why when you move your arm off the desk your hand doesn't seperate from your body and stay on the desk.
Not necessarily true.We're drawing a conclusion based on observational evidence of something we have not yet observed. Meaning, we're concluding Gravity exists because we've observed the proverbial apple fall. This causes several problems.1. We'r
Anyway balance in RPG's (not just D&D) is subjective
I disagree. Balance is like the temperature. Sure, one person may think it's hot while another thinks it's just fine, but the actual value is an objective thing, it's the reactions that are subjective.
and it is shaped by the genres and individuals expectations. It also varies by the game world the DM has created and the amount of combat and non combat expected.
Much like the temperature inside a home is dependant on multiple features, such as shading, insulation and air conditioning. The subjectivity does not invalidate statements of condition.
Perfect balance is a waste of time IMHO due to these factors and even then there are other ways to deal with it.
No one is arguing for perfect balance. Even balance advocates acknowledge that perfect balance is an intellectual unicorn. But that does not mean balance should not be pursued. I will never be perfectly clean, but that does not mean I should quit bathing.
I agree.Mayhap it has already ended poorly. I disagree. Balance is like the temperature. Sure, one person may think it's hot while another thinks it's just fine, but the actual value is an objective thing, it's the reactions that are subjective. Mu
However balance is easily objective. Its simple throw an equals sign down. Put one thing on each side of it. If they are equal, then its balanced. If they are not its not equal. There's nothing subjective about it. Now people can like or dislike the two things on either side of the equal sign, but that has nothing to do with balance. That has to do with the two things you are measuring, which you can swap out until you get two things that everyone likes...
It's not actually that simple. First you have to define what "equals" means. Actually, first you have to define what quantity or matrix or whatever it is that you have on each side of the equals sign, and then you have to define what "equals" means. Does equal mean that each individual facet of what's on the left and the right is identical? Does it mean that as a sum total what's on the right and the left are equal? Something in between that?
It's not actually that simple. First you have to define what "equals" means. Actually, first you have to define what quantity or matrix or whatever it is that you have on each side of the equals sign, and then you have to define what "equals" means
However balance is easily objective. Its simple throw an equals sign down. Put one thing on each side of it. If they are equal, then its balanced. If they are not its not equal. There's nothing subjective about it. Now people can like or dislike the two things on either side of the equal sign, but that has nothing to do with balance. That has to do with the two things you are measuring, which you can swap out until you get two things that everyone likes...
It's not actually that simple. First you have to define what "equals" means. Actually, first you have to define what quantity or matrix or whatever it is that you have on each side of the equals sign, and then you have to define what "equals" means. Does equal mean that each individual facet of what's on the left and the right is identical? Does it mean that as a sum total what's on the right and the left are equal? Something in between that?
Anytime a player makes a choice during character creation, you take each of those options and balance them against each other. Anytime a character has a choice in an encounter (combat or otherwise) you balance each of those against each other. Equals is simple. Especially in the near binary system of D&D. You either win or lose. You either succeed or fail. So equals means they succeed or fail at the goal the same number of times over the course of 4,000 or more attempts. You can further balance it when you take things into account like how fast they help reach that goal, and whether they take more or less resources (hit points, actions, etc) to reach the goal.
The last three sentences of your post, show you don't know very much about math, because equals simply means the things on the left of the equals sign are equal to the things on the right side, so if you put 4 things on the left and 2 on the right they can be equal or not equal.
Really its pretty clear cut...
It's not actually that simple. First you have to define what "equals" means. Actually, first you have to define what quantity or matrix or whatever it is that you have on each side of the equals sign, and then you have to define what "equals" means
Anytime a player makes a choice during character creation, you take each of those options and balance them against each other.
So balance is when two things are equal. And equal means those two things... are balanced. Got it.
Anytime a character has a choice in an encounter (combat or otherwise) you balance each of those against each other. Equals is simple.
Those two sentences don't make sense together. If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character option, that sounds rather complex. I mean, granted, I don't know very much about math, but wouldn't an equality operator that involves a comparison between matrices with an infinite number of dimensions be rather difficult to actually use? It doesn't sound simple.
So balance is when two things are equal. And equal means those two things... are balanced. Got it.Those two sentences don't make sense together. If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character
Anytime a player makes a choice during character creation, you take each of those options and balance them against each other.
So balance is when two things are equal. And equal means those two things... are balanced. Got it.
Anytime a character has a choice in an encounter (combat or otherwise) you balance each of those against each other. Equals is simple.
Those two sentences don't make sense together. If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character option, that sounds rather complex. I mean, granted, I don't know very much about math, but wouldn't an equality operator that involves a comparison between matrices with an infinite number of dimensions be rather difficult to actually use? It doesn't sound simple.
It's so simple it's never been done. Not even by the richest gaming companies in the world.
So balance is when two things are equal. And equal means those two things... are balanced. Got it.Those two sentences don't make sense together. If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character
If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character option, that sounds rather complex. I mean, granted, I don't know very much about math, but wouldn't an equality operator that involves a comparison between matrices with an infinite number of dimensions be rather difficult to actually use? It doesn't sound simple.
Yeah, like how do you balance a spell, such as Animate Rope, with "combat feat X"?
If you cannot quantify all the possible ways in which a given spell can be used, then how do you make it "equal" with other abilities in the game (or even with other spells)?
Yeah, like how do you balance a spell, such as Animate Rope, with "combat feat X"?If you cannot quantify all the possible ways in which a given spell can be used, then how do you make it "equal" with other abilities in the game (or even with other sp
Anytime a player makes a choice during character creation, you take each of those options and balance them against each other.
So balance is when two things are equal. And equal means those two things... are balanced. Got it.
Anytime a character has a choice in an encounter (combat or otherwise) you balance each of those against each other. Equals is simple.
Those two sentences don't make sense together. If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character option, that sounds rather complex. I mean, granted, I don't know very much about math, but wouldn't an equality operator that involves a comparison between matrices with an infinite number of dimensions be rather difficult to actually use? It doesn't sound simple.
Yes, its complex and guess what? Computers cut through complex like a hot knife through butter. This is why no edition so far has been balanced. They have been testing it like computers don't exist...
So balance is when two things are equal. And equal means those two things... are balanced. Got it.Those two sentences don't make sense together. If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character
Anytime a player makes a choice during character creation, you take each of those options and balance them against each other.
So balance is when two things are equal. And equal means those two things... are balanced. Got it.
Anytime a character has a choice in an encounter (combat or otherwise) you balance each of those against each other. Equals is simple.
Those two sentences don't make sense together. If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character option, that sounds rather complex. I mean, granted, I don't know very much about math, but wouldn't an equality operator that involves a comparison between matrices with an infinite number of dimensions be rather difficult to actually use? It doesn't sound simple.
It's so simple it's never been done. Not even by the richest gaming companies in the world.
What, you mean the richest table top RPG companies that operate on a budget that a middle class house wife would laugh at? yeah, sure thing buddy...
So balance is when two things are equal. And equal means those two things... are balanced. Got it.Those two sentences don't make sense together. If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character
Yes, its complex and guess what? Computers cut through complex like a hot knife through butter. This is why no edition so far has been balanced. They have been testing it like computers don't exist...
Computers aren't magical. They don't do infinity very well.
Computers aren't magical. They don't do infinity very well.
If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character option, that sounds rather complex. I mean, granted, I don't know very much about math, but wouldn't an equality operator that involves a comparison between matrices with an infinite number of dimensions be rather difficult to actually use? It doesn't sound simple.
Yeah, like how do you balance a spell, such as Animate Rope, with "combat feat X"?
If you cannot quantify all the possible ways in which a given spell can be used, then how do you make it "equal" with other abilities in the game (or even with other spells)?
Animate rope is mechanically limited and can't be used in combat. You also don't balance things that can't be quantified using math. You balance those with 4,000+ play test reports where you tell the testers to compare the results of animate rope with other choices that are meant to be useful. You can also balance it with clear and concise rules that explain what can and can't be done with it...
Yeah, like how do you balance a spell, such as Animate Rope, with "combat feat X"?If you cannot quantify all the possible ways in which a given spell can be used, then how do you make it "equal" with other abilities in the game (or even with other sp
Anytime a player makes a choice during character creation, you take each of those options and balance them against each other.
So balance is when two things are equal. And equal means those two things... are balanced. Got it.
Anytime a character has a choice in an encounter (combat or otherwise) you balance each of those against each other. Equals is simple.
Those two sentences don't make sense together. If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character option, that sounds rather complex. I mean, granted, I don't know very much about math, but wouldn't an equality operator that involves a comparison between matrices with an infinite number of dimensions be rather difficult to actually use? It doesn't sound simple.
It's so simple it's never been done. Not even by the richest gaming companies in the world.
What, you mean the richest table top RPG companies that operate on a budget that a middle class house wife would laugh at? yeah, sure thing buddy...
You have no idea of what you are talking about.
Blizzard is not poor and they desperatly work at balance and fail. Microsoft is not poor and they failed with balance in their online game. Not trying to be mean but what level of math have you studied because I get the feeling you don't understand the VAST number of permutations.
So balance is when two things are equal. And equal means those two things... are balanced. Got it.Those two sentences don't make sense together. If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character
Anytime a player makes a choice during character creation, you take each of those options and balance them against each other.
So balance is when two things are equal. And equal means those two things... are balanced. Got it.
Anytime a character has a choice in an encounter (combat or otherwise) you balance each of those against each other. Equals is simple.
Those two sentences don't make sense together. If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character option, that sounds rather complex. I mean, granted, I don't know very much about math, but wouldn't an equality operator that involves a comparison between matrices with an infinite number of dimensions be rather difficult to actually use? It doesn't sound simple.
It's so simple it's never been done. Not even by the richest gaming companies in the world.
Who has actually tried for balance?
Companies like Blizzard (since you mentioned them) have almost always chosen flavor and "fun" over balance. Companies strive for what sells, not for anything even remotely balanced. The last time Blizzard tried to actually balance things was early in The Burning Crusade. Balanced Druids caused such an outcry Blizzard responded with a 30% reduction across the board in their DPS. It has literally been years since Blizzard has tried to balance anything. They learned that the subjective element, not the objective, is what makes money. They've used that philosophy to make some pretty significant profits.
Balancing a game really is easy. Selling a balanced game, or making it subjectively fun, is not so easy.
So balance is when two things are equal. And equal means those two things... are balanced. Got it.Those two sentences don't make sense together. If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single charac
Yes, its complex and guess what? Computers cut through complex like a hot knife through butter. This is why no edition so far has been balanced. They have been testing it like computers don't exist...
Computers aren't magical. They don't do infinity very well.
Good thing they don't have to. Since there are a very small number of variables in D&D compared to some of the systems that computers have to deal with. This means it would be relatively easy to do this...
Computers aren't magical. They don't do infinity very well.[/quote]Good thing they don't have to. Since there are a very small number of variables in D&D compared to some of the systems that computers have to deal with. This means it would be relati
Good thing they don't have to. Since there are a very small number of variables in D&D compared to some of the systems that computers have to deal with. This means it would be relatively easy to do this...
Well, you specified that "balanced" would mean that they are equivalent in all scenarios (or across all encounters, anyway). Since there are an infinite number of possible encounters that can be built... there you go.
Well, you specified that "balanced" would mean that they are equivalent in all scenarios (or across all encounters, anyway). Since there are an infinite number of possible encounters that can be built... there you go.
Perfect balance isn't always desirable. Some options have to be better than others, or else the game doesn't move anywhere. If a player enters the game with the assurance that all the choices they could make are going to perform roughly the same no matter what combination of actions they take, then the risk of failure and the enjoyment of victory are both going to be lessened. Not trying to set up a straw-man, just pointing out that crunching numbers to maximize balance isn't going to account for the fun factor, and in fact can seriously mess it up. Because imbalances drive players to explore and experiment and eventually master the game. Multiple paths towards mastery, each ending in a slightly different place but roughly equal is awesome. But if all possible paths lead to mastery, what's the point?
Perfect balance isn't always desirable. Some options have to be better than others, or else the game doesn't move anywhere. If a player enters the game with the assurance that all the choices they could make are going to perform roughly the same no
If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character option, that sounds rather complex. I mean, granted, I don't know very much about math, but wouldn't an equality operator that involves a comparison between matrices with an infinite number of dimensions be rather difficult to actually use? It doesn't sound simple.
Yeah, like how do you balance a spell, such as Animate Rope, with "combat feat X"?
If you cannot quantify all the possible ways in which a given spell can be used, then how do you make it "equal" with other abilities in the game (or even with other spells)?
Animate rope is mechanically limited and can't be used in combat.
Ok, but players can still choose it, right?
And if so, are you saying that we must divide spells into two categories: spells that can be used in combat, and spells that can't?
And if so, are you saying that we must make all spellcasters of a given level choose X number of spells from category A, and Y number of spells from category B (because spellcasters wouldn't be balanced with each other if they could choose to focus more or less heavily on one category than the other)?
I'm just trying to understand where all this "balance" is headed...
You also don't balance things that can't be quantified using math. You balance those with 4,000+ play test reports where you tell the testers to compare the results of animate rope with other choices that are meant to be useful.
So we just need to playtest to compare all of the possible uses of Animate Rope with every other possible spell that could be used in that situation?
And then we just need to do the same thing with every other "non-quantifiable" spell, i.e. playtest to compare it to all other possible spells?
How many playtesters are we going to need to do all that? And how long will it take?
And even after all that testing, couldn't someone still come up with a unique way of using Animate Rope or some other spell?
Yeah, like how do you balance a spell, such as Animate Rope, with "combat feat X"?If you cannot quantify all the possible ways in which a given spell can be used, then how do you make it "equal" with other abilities in the game (or even with other sp
Perfect balance isn't always desirable. Some options have to be better than others, or else the game doesn't move anywhere. If a player enters the game with the assurance that all the choices they could make are going to perform roughly the same no matter what combination of actions they take, then the risk of failure and the enjoyment of victory are both going to be lessened. Not trying to set up a straw-man, just pointing out that crunching numbers to maximize balance isn't going to account for the fun factor, and in fact can seriously mess it up. Because imbalances drive players to explore and experiment and eventually master the game. Multiple paths towards mastery, each ending in a slightly different place but roughly equal is awesome. But if all possible paths lead to mastery, what's the point?
Sorry, that doesn't follow.
"Some options have to be better than others, or else the game doesn't move anywhere." This isn't true at all. In fact the game would progress as normal and all players would have equal time to shine and do their thing. Even if it somehow were true, just adding dice in would have a significant effect.
"Equal choices == risk of failure and enjoyment of victory being lessened" Nope sorry. risk of failure is tied to difficulty of challenge, not whether players options are equal. Enjoyment of victory is purely subjective which means some options will increase it while others will decrease it. So again it has nothing to do with equality.
"maximizing balance == ignoring fun factor." False dichotomy. They can do both in the same game. Most 5-7 year olds will tell you that tic-tac-toe is fun (well some will anyway) and it is completely balanced. Chess is completely balanced and many people find it extremely fun. The two are not tied to each other in any way.
"what's the point of all paths leading to mastery?" All players regardless of which class they choose or which character concept they have can have an equal amount of fun, rather than being relegated to side kick status for picking the wrong options.
Any more questions?
Sorry, that doesn't follow."Some options have to be better than others, or else the game doesn't move anywhere."This isn't true at all. In fact the game would progress as normal and all players would have equal time to shine and do their thing. Even
The simple matter is that class balance, and overall improved game balance have been achieved, it was called 4e.
NOt everyone liked how it was achieved but now that many of us have tasted it and liked it it's going to be something that's important to the new edition. Why should we buy 5e if it takes huge steps back from 4e?
5e needs to be better than 4e, not worse.
The simple matter is that class balance, and overall improved game balance have been achieved, it was called 4e.NOt everyone liked how it was achieved but now that many of us have tasted it and liked it it's going to be something that's important to
If I have to predict the likelihood of failure in every given context, based on every single character option, that sounds rather complex. I mean, granted, I don't know very much about math, but wouldn't an equality operator that involves a comparison between matrices with an infinite number of dimensions be rather difficult to actually use? It doesn't sound simple.
Yeah, like how do you balance a spell, such as Animate Rope, with "combat feat X"?
If you cannot quantify all the possible ways in which a given spell can be used, then how do you make it "equal" with other abilities in the game (or even with other spells)?
Animate rope is mechanically limited and can't be used in combat.
Ok, but players can still choose it, right?
And if so, are you saying that we must divide spells into two categories: spells that can be used in combat, and spells that can't?
That would be ideal, yes. However you only have to balance combat spells against combat spells and utility spells against utility spells. The player would choose which they would want to lean more toward while playing. Thus the starting point would be balance, but a player could choose to be unbalanced by choose more utility spells than combat spells.
And if so, are you saying that we must make all spellcasters of a given level choose X number of spells from category A, and Y number of spells from category B (because spellcasters wouldn't be balanced with each other if they could choose to focus more or less heavily on one category than the other)?
I'm just trying to understand where all this "balance" is headed...
See above answer. All spell casters should have the same options to be balanced. If they want to throw those options out the window and intentionally unbalance their character, they are free to do so.
Also this is one of my main problems with vancian. It allows you to remake your character every day, so that you could be a combat master one day, an exploration guru the next, and a socialite the third. you also have the option of being completely useless.
You also don't balance things that can't be quantified using math. You balance those with 4,000+ play test reports where you tell the testers to compare the results of animate rope with other choices that are meant to be useful.
So we just need to playtest to compare all of the possible uses of Animate Rope with every other possible spell that could be used in that situation?
Yep. There aren't as many uses as you are making out. First you have to have a rope, then you have to have something stand still long enough for the rope to work on it. There really aren't that many things you can do. The best way to do this is the look at the mechanical side. Sure there are an infinite number of ways you can manipulate rope, but only a small subset that will actually have a mechanical impact on the game.
And then we just need to do the same thing with every other "non-quantifiable" spell, i.e. playtest to compare it to all other possible spells?
How many playtesters are we going to need to do all that? And how long will it take?
And even after all that testing, couldn't someone still come up with a unique way of using Animate Rope or some other spell?
Not from a mechanical viewpoint. You can have a rope fly up into the air and dance around, but what mechanical impact does that have? "You waste your action" is about the mechanical impact of that. When it comes down to it, there are only so many mechanical things you can do with these kinds of spells...
Yeah, like how do you balance a spell, such as Animate Rope, with "combat feat X"?If you cannot quantify all the possible ways in which a given spell can be used, then how do you make it "equal" with other abilities in the game (or even with other sp
Here I thought this thread had promise in the OP, but now it's morphed from "Nuh-uh, cuz maths!" - which is bad enough on its own - but now it's about... rope trick, evolution, and God knows what else. This one's officially outlived its usefulness.
Most of those companies embed imbalance intentionally and then have you pay for expansions or packages with microtransactions to make up the difference.
WoW is not like that at all. They sell fluff items as micro-transactions, but not balancing items. EVERY expansion is merely to add content and levels, so there is no reason not to balance them.
WoW is not like that at all. They sell fluff items as micro-transactions, but not balancing items. EVERY expansion is merely to add content and levels, so there is no reason not to balance them.
Here's what I think: The computations are too big . They are incredibly diverse, which is why comparing this to WoW or any other MMORPG is silly. Those companies balance very pre-defined actions against very pre-defined opponents, and they still don't get it right. It's a big difference. As for rope trick, I am sure there are uses for it in combat. I mean why can't I mage hand or rope trick to grab arrows out of an opponent's quiver? Seems pretty simple to me. Some DM's might require a thievery check, others may just say ok. This leads me to the next part...
To have bealance like you're talking about, one has to have a set of conditions that are the same across the board. With such an incredible amount of conditions, you would literally have to have about a million rules. A million rules = not fun in my book.
Here's what I think: The computations are too big . They are incredibly diverse, which is why comparing this to WoW or any other MMORPG is silly. Those companies balance very pre-defined actions against very pre-defined opponents, and they still do
Balance, or at elast more balance than is already present in 5e, is not hard, the changes that need to be made are fairly obvious, wizards and clerics need to get their spell access restricted, fighters need non-combat abilities that don't set them behind on combat power, races need to stop using gear/class specific abilities to make up for a lack of features that are actually interesting, humans need to stop being super buffed, combat expertise needs to include a few control options (especially for the fighter).
Balance, or at elast more balance than is already present in 5e, is not hard, the changes that need to be made are fairly obvious, wizards and clerics need to get their spell access restricted, fighters need non-combat abilities that don't set them b
Balance, or at elast more balance than is already present in 5e, is not hard, the changes that need to be made are fairly obvious, wizards and clerics need to get their spell access restricted, fighters need non-combat abilities that don't set them behind on combat power, races need to stop using gear/class specific abilities to make up for a lack of features that are actually interesting, humans need to stop being super buffed, combat expertise needs to include a few control options (especially for the fighter).
I completely agree with Rampant on this. We've been in agreement since the early part of this thread, I just worry a bit more about power creep. (I've seen about three posts on different threads implying power creep. Please look, it's there. )But, overall the feeling is mutual. Balance is actually one of feel and numbers.
One thing that hasn't been addressed is how to make the martial classes (for those that don't want them magical) feel as cool as the wizard class. I mean, a fighter can run up and lop a goblin's head off (poor goblin's, they never get a break) for 50 points of damage, but it still pales in comparison to a wizard who blows up a room with a fireball (wow!) and incinerates 3 goblins for 30 points of damage. Not saying it's a multi-attack thing, I'm just saying the fireball is/feels/sounds/appears more dynamic. So is using Tenser's floating disk to levitate across a chasm versus leaping over it. It's just that, often times (not all), magic is, well, just cooler.
I completely agree with Rampant on this. We've been in agreement since the early part of this thread, I just worry a bit more about power creep. (I've seen about three posts on different threads implying power creep. Please look, it's there. :) )
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Ive removed content from this thread because trolling, baiting and discussion of politics and relgion, are alla violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite,
One thing that hasn't been addressed is how to make the martial classes feel as cool as the wizard class.
I do agree that this is hard if you have the following constraints: 1) Fighters can't do anything that could be perceived as "magical". 2) Combat lasts generally 2 or 3 rounds.
The speed of the combats really hurts a Fighter's ability to be "cool" within any of these combat since it closes off so many abilities that might be cool but since the enemy has so few hit points and since hitting them with a regular attack is so effective, it often just makes sense to do that. Couple that with the Fighters mostly at-will only nature and even something that seems cool at-will, gets boring after a while.
The Fighter as a class is trying to serve too many interests simultaneously and is being torn apart because of it. It can't be magical, it can't really have daily abilities, it has to be simple, whatever options / abilities it is given pure damage still has to be a viable option, etc. In general, I don't think other martial classes are as constrained as the Fighter.
Explain a bit more about this if you could. What power is creeping and where is it starting?I do agree that this is hard if you have the following constraints:1) Fighters can't do anything that could be perceived as "magical".2) Combat lasts generall
One thing that hasn't been addressed is how to make the martial classes feel as cool as the wizard class.
I do agree that this is hard if you have the following constraints: 1) Fighters can't do anything that could be perceived as "magical". 2) Combat lasts generally 2 or 3 rounds.
The speed of the combats really hurts a Fighter's ability to be "cool" within any of these combat since it closes off so many abilities that might be cool but since the enemy has so few hit points and since hitting them with a regular attack is so effective, it often just makes sense to do that. Couple that with the Fighters mostly at-will only nature and even something that seems cool at-will, gets boring after a while.
The Fighter as a class is trying to serve too many interests simultaneously and is being torn apart because of it. It can't be magical, it can't really have daily abilities, it has to be simple, whatever options / abilities it is given pure damage still has to be a viable option, etc. In general, I don't think other martial classes are as constrained as the Fighter.
Without going into it too deeply, power creep is when people with good intentions (We should make the fighter cooler) details/implements ideas on how to do that. Then, at a closer look, it steps all over the other classes' niches/is overly powerful/throws another class out of balance (like the thief). Then someone comes along with perfectly good intentions (We should make the thief as cool as the fighter), and repeat.
I know this is the crux of balance, I just keep wondering if there shouldn't be seperate fighter classes - the Conan lop heads off; the magical walk on tree tops; the sit and tank; etc. I think Wizards has done a good job at allowing different fighter paths, it just seems to me (and a few others) that they are all outshined by other classes. But, then power creep, creeps into my head.
Explain a bit more about this if you could. What power is creeping and where is it starting?I do agree that this is hard if you have the following constraints:1) Fighters can't do anything that could be perceived as "magical".2) Combat lasts generall
Good thing they don't have to. Since there are a very small number of variables in D&D compared to some of the systems that computers have to deal with. This means it would be relatively easy to do this...
Let me see here....in these posts you imply that balancing via programming could be done very cheaply and quickly: Post #259 "It would be trivial to program this kind of stuff into a computer..." Post #260 "I'll tell you what, if you pay me to do the developers jobs I'll bang it out over a long weekend, if I can't find the software that will do it already. If nothing else I could recommend a company that would do it for a small fee."
In this post, you claim that WotC would be one of the only ones capable of affording it: Post#268 "You must misunderstand the industry. Table top RPG makers are not hug corporations with endless dollars. Most of them barely make enough profit to continue to exist. WotC is about the only one with a real budget."
In these two, you're back to saying that WotC is on a trivial budget: Post #280 "...that's all up to the choices of WotC and all of the other shoe string budget table top RPG companies out there." Post #379 "What, you mean the richest table top RPG companies that operate on a budget that a middle class house wife would laugh at?"
Which is it? Cheap and easy (able to do over a weekend or for a "small fee"), or out of the reach of every major RPG developer, including WotC/Hasbro?
Let me see here....in these posts you imply that balancing via programming could be done very cheaply and quickly:Post #259"It would be trivial to program this kind of stuff into a computer..."Post #260"I'll tell you what, if you pay me to do the dev
Animate rope is mechanically limited and can't be used in combat.
Ok, but players can still choose it, right?
And if so, are you saying that we must divide spells into two categories: spells that can be used in combat, and spells that can't?
You could do it that way, but you could also just make a category called "takes no action" or "DM improvises results". For example, even if you could cast animate rope in combat and make a rope dance (ie. not interfering with anyone), then that is functionally equivalent to standing still and not taking an action. If the DM decides that making a rope dance has an effect on combat, like distracting someone, then he has effectively changed the spell to do something improvised, which should be part of the balance formula in a similar way to the various damage charts by level in 4e, hopefully expanded to include effects. In the end, there is only a limited number of combat relevant effects that need to be adjudicated. For the purpsoes of balance, making someone smile for a second is functionally equivalent to taking no action, so you don't need to worry about it.
Let me see here....in these posts you imply that balancing via programming could be done very cheaply and quickly: Post #259 "It would be trivial to program this kind of stuff into a computer..." Post #260 "I'll tell you what, if you pay me to do the developers jobs I'll bang it out over a long weekend, if I can't find the software that will do it already. If nothing else I could recommend a company that would do it for a small fee."
In this post, you claim that WotC would be one of the only ones capable of affording it: Post#268 "You must misunderstand the industry. Table top RPG makers are not hug corporations with endless dollars. Most of them barely make enough profit to continue to exist. WotC is about the only one with a real budget."
In these two, you're back to saying that WotC is on a trivial budget: Post #280 "...that's all up to the choices of WotC and all of the other shoe string budget table top RPG companies out there." Post #379 "What, you mean the richest table top RPG companies that operate on a budget that a middle class house wife would laugh at?"
Which is it? Cheap and easy (able to do over a weekend or for a "small fee"), or out of the reach of every major RPG developer, including WotC/Hasbro?
There are a couple of things here. Something can be easy, but still time consuming. Something can take a little time when you have few variables and add new variables in slowly as they are made instead of trying to create a system to cover thousands of existing elements, like adding a character builder now which covers all existing 3e martial from WotC.
Also, I read the quotes you mention here and I don't see where it says it would be "cheap". There is claims of easy, but easy is not cheap. When Lokiare talks about doing it over the weekend, he wasn't being clear if that meant just the base system and might not have included data entry for the monsters, class, feats, skills, and effects that you want to add to the system, which would take some time. Although, given that he talks about this being out of the reach of small companies implies that it would have a general high cost, which implies it would take time to have everything. This is also the same reason why most game companies don't have a character builder (online or offline) for their RPGs. These would always be added value for a game, but most don't have it because it is an extra expense. This is similar. Also, budgets are relative. Something can be the largest in its industry and still be considered tiny relative to other industries.
Ok, but players can still choose it, right?And if so, are you saying that we must divide spells into two categories: spells that can be used in combat, and spells that can't?[/quote]You could do it that way, but you could also just make a category ca
Those who are talking as if Math can magically fix balance are doing math and balance a disservice. To see why, imagine the easiest case - a only fighting d&d with only 1 class fighters, who always hit. Now, imagine you have two weapons - d12 and 2d6. Now, those are pretty close, and most people will consider the balanced enough, but in order for them to be perfectly balanced, you need to make sure that your monster hp are cleverly chosen, with some having hp favoring the d12 (11 hp) and some favouring the 2d12 (2 hp). If you add any monsters, you need to limit their hp to maintain that equation. And that's with 2 weapons, intentionally chosen to be balanceable. If you add a d4, you need to play with accuracy, and now your bestiary has hp and AC requirements. Even in that trivial system, it's easy to show that it's impossible to add only 1 monster and retain perfect balance.
And, remember, we're not even trying to figure out how to balance things that people actually have opinions on. To balance ranged vs melee, you need to figure out what percentage of dms create maps that favor one vs another, and what percentage of dms create encounters that Favor one vs another.
And remember, even in this hypothetical perfectly balanced scenario; it doesn't stop dms from accidentally breaking balance. If sneak attack is balanced against being bad at undead, and clerics are balanced against bein good against undead, then the perfectly balanced system (with 42.3% undead) will still fail when the dm decides to run ravenloft, or dark sun.
Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that balance is pointless or subjective, or not worth fighting for. Perhaps a better solution is, instead of aiming for perfect balance, aim for a system that restores balance. If the fighter can only fight, but is great at it, then the balance point is fragile - the dm has to balance combat/non combat carefully. If the wizard can rule an encounter, but only some times/day, then the number of encounters per day needs to be strictly controlled.
Both of those are "balanced", hypothetically, but fragile. A better design would be to allow for less domination/day (which expands the number of acceptable encounters/day) and give the fighter more out of combat utility (which expands the number of combats/non-combat possibilities while still remaining balanced )
Now, it's fair to argue that specialization is fun, and that by expanding balance, we remove specialization. But specialization can ruin balance. After all, the ultimate specialization was the early psionic - if you rolled psionic, you dominated the entire adventure - if you didn't roll psionic, then someone else ruled instead. Which is the ultimate in specialization - your entire capability is based on one die roll. Even if that is hypothetically balanced, it's never possible to be practically balanced.
If you're the kind of person who likes specialization, and doesn't mind the balance problems, good for you. I think it's fair for the advanced rules to cater to that style - since your advanced dm will have more experience dealing with forcibly rebalancing campaigns. But, if we want dming to be easy, then we want it to work in a variety of circumstances, which argues the basic rules shouldn't allow for such specialization that the dm needs to force balance when the system becomes unbalanced.
Which argues for more robust, less specialized base characters.
Those who are talking as if Math can magically fix balance are doing math and balance a disservice. To see why, imagine the easiest case - a only fighting d&d with only 1 class fighters, who always hit. Now, imagine you have two weapons - d12 and
To see why, imagine the easiest case - a only fighting d&d with only 1 class fighters, who always hit. Now, imagine you have two weapons - d12 and 2d6. Now, those are pretty close, and most people will consider the balanced enough, but in order for them to be perfectly balanced, you need to make sure that your monster hp are cleverly chosen, with some having hp favoring the d12 (11 hp) and some favouring the 2d12 (2 hp). If you add any monsters, you need to limit their hp to maintain that equation. And that's with 2 weapons, intentionally chosen to be balanceable. If you add a d4, you need to play with accuracy, and now your bestiary has hp and AC requirements. Even in that trivial system, it's easy to show that it's impossible to add only 1 monster and retain perfect balance.
So show it, if it is so easy to show that it is impossibe. Your system has three weapons and a handful of properties (damage, hit points, AC, and attack bonus). Also, a 1d12 damage dice and and a 2d6 damage dice are "pretty close" as you say, so if your goal is to get balance to be pretty close, then your work is already done, if not, then determine which one is "better" in the system and give the worse one a balancing factor.
You also have to recognize that you cannot just balancing things in isolation. For example, maybe a 1d4 dagger in the hands of a Fighter is always going to be worse in a combat situation then a 1d8 longsword and there is nothing wrong with that because the Knife Killer class is based around using the dagger and is balanced against the Fighter with this in mind.
To balance ranged vs melee, you need to figure out what percentage of dms create maps that favor one vs another, and what percentage of dms create encounters that Favor one vs another.
I don't think that level of percision is necessary to create a balanced scenario.
If the wizard can rule an encounter, but only some times/day, then the number of encounters per day needs to be strictly controlled.
Which of course is very, very hard to do outside of limited adventure types.
So show it, if it is so easy to show that it is impossibe. Your system has three weapons and a handful of properties (damage, hit points, AC, and attack bonus). Also, a 1d12 damage dice and and a 2d6 damage dice are "pretty close" as you say, so if y
In case my previous post skipped some steps: if you have a monster with 11 hp, the 1d12 has a 1/6 chance of one shotting. The 2d6 has a 1/12 chance of one shotting. If you have a monster with 2 hp, the 2d6 will always one shot, but the 1d12 will not one shot 1/12 chance. So, to make sure that the 2d6 and 1d12 are perfectly balanced, we need to make monsters such that there are the same number of monsters with 2 hp as 11. That makes sure that both of them have a mathematically identical chance of one shotting a monster. Now, in that perfect world, there no hp value between 1-12 that keeps the chance of one shotting identical for both. This is because, for monsters 7 hp and less, the 2d6 has a slight advantage. For monsters 8 hp and more, the d12 has an advantage.
Which is why I say that, even in this example, "perfect balance" is impossible. Understand me - I'm not saying balance isn't good, measureable, or fun - just that this fantasy of using math to perfectly balance d&d is fantasy. They could use math to get it closer, sure, but perfect isn't possible.
As I said though, I think there's more value in asking "how many assumptions are required to keep balance and how far off do they run if the assumptions are broken." In Aedu, balance was unaffected by number of encounters/day, allowing the dm to pick any. When essentials came out, the number of encounters per day was assumed to keep balance - making it more brittle and more work for the dm.
In case my previous post skipped some steps: if you have a monster with 11 hp, the 1d12 has a 1/6 chance of one shotting. The 2d6 has a 1/12 chance of one shotting. If you have a monster with 2 hp, the 2d6 will always one shot, but the 1d12 wi
In case my previous post skipped some steps: if you have a monster with 11 hp, the 1d12 has a 1/6 chance of one shotting. The 2d6 has a 1/12 chance of one shotting. If you have a monster with 2 hp, the 2d6 will always one shot, but the 1d12 will not one shot 1/12 chance. So, to make sure that the 2d6 and 1d12 are perfectly balanced, we need to make monsters such that there are the same number of monsters with 2 hp as 11. That makes sure that both of them have a mathematically identical chance of one shotting a monster. Now, in that perfect world, there no hp value between 1-12 that keeps the chance of one shotting identical for both. This is because, for monsters 7 hp and less, the 2d6 has a slight advantage. For monsters 8 hp and more, the d12 has an advantage. Which is why I say that, even in this example, "perfect balance" is impossible. Understand me - I'm not saying balance isn't good, measureable, or fun - just that this fantasy of using math to perfectly balance d&d is fantasy. They could use math to get it closer, sure, but perfect isn't possible. As I said though, I think there's more value in asking "how many assumptions are required to keep balance and how far off do they run if the assumptions are broken." In Aedu, balance was unaffected by number of encounters/day, allowing the dm to pick any. When essentials came out, the number of encounters per day was assumed to keep balance - making it more brittle and more work for the dm.
The main problem with your argument is that no one is aiming for super perfect balanced on the head of a pin 'balance'. We are looking for 'these options are equally valuable across a multitude of common situations'. So something like 2d6 vs. 1d12 doesn't even pop up on our radar. Stuff like 1d10 vs. 1d12 barely makes it on the radar and only if other factors are also unbalanced.
The main problem with your argument is that no one is aiming for super perfect balanced on the head of a pin 'balance'. We are looking for 'these options are equally valuable across a multitude of common situations'. So something like 2d6 vs. 1d12 do
In case my previous post skipped some steps: if you have a monster with 11 hp, the 1d12 has a 1/6 chance of one shotting. The 2d6 has a 1/12 chance of one shotting. If you have a monster with 2 hp, the 2d6 will always one shot, but the 1d12 will not one shot 1/12 chance. So, to make sure that the 2d6 and 1d12 are perfectly balanced, we need to make monsters such that there are the same number of monsters with 2 hp as 11. That makes sure that both of them have a mathematically identical chance of one shotting a monster. Now, in that perfect world, there no hp value between 1-12 that keeps the chance of one shotting identical for both. This is because, for monsters 7 hp and less, the 2d6 has a slight advantage. For monsters 8 hp and more, the d12 has an advantage. Which is why I say that, even in this example, "perfect balance" is impossible. Understand me - I'm not saying balance isn't good, measureable, or fun - just that this fantasy of using math to perfectly balance d&d is fantasy. They could use math to get it closer, sure, but perfect isn't possible. As I said though, I think there's more value in asking "how many assumptions are required to keep balance and how far off do they run if the assumptions are broken." In Aedu, balance was unaffected by number of encounters/day, allowing the dm to pick any. When essentials came out, the number of encounters per day was assumed to keep balance - making it more brittle and more work for the dm.
The main problem with your argument is that no one is aiming for super perfect balanced on the head of a pin 'balance'. We are looking for 'these options are equally valuable across a multitude of common situations'. So something like 2d6 vs. 1d12 doesn't even pop up on our radar. Stuff like 1d10 vs. 1d12 barely makes it on the radar and only if other factors are also unbalanced.
Can't accurately say noone when a Charops forum exists.
The main problem with your argument is that no one is aiming for super perfect balanced on the head of a pin 'balance'. We are looking for 'these options are equally valuable across a multitude of common situations'. So something like 2d6 vs. 1d12 do
I As I said though, I think there's more value in asking "how many assumptions are required to keep balance and how far off do they run if the assumptions are broken." In Aedu, balance was unaffected by number of encounters/day, allowing the dm to pick any. When essentials came out, the number of encounters per day was assumed to keep balance - making it more brittle and more work for the dm.
I like the term Robustness.. the fewer assumptions the more robust the balance and the more it holds up to varying play styles/habits.
I like the term Robustness.. the fewer assumptions the more robust the balance and the more it holds up to varying play styles/habits.
Orkkiller - I tried to make it clear - a balanced approach like yours (and mine) that looks for flexible options under a variety of circumstances is good balance, and one that I endorse. I take issue with those who think that math and computers will solve the problem for us - no amount of math will rescue us from brittle design, and no algorithm can lead to perfect balance. If you weren't arguing for perfect balance then we agree
If those who were arguing for "setting things equal" and writing computer programs for balance were assuming rough balance and not perfect balance, then I've just argued against a point that no one believed. (Oops). But, I get the feeling that some people who think that balance can be achieved through math haven't thought through how to do the design well. (For instance, if long sword is almost always better than dagger, but there's a dagger build whose is so good that daggers are "balanced", what that really means is that daggers are broken if you min/max, a trap if you don't, and longswords are a mistake for those who lack system mastery enough to use daggers. While that might be mathematically balanced (out of 1000 playtesters, daggers and longswords averaged the exact same damage), it's practically the definition of brittle design - once the dagger build leaks to the Internet, now daggers are just too good for those with system mastery, and dms need to use monsters immune to daggers. It's why I think we need to focus on a different measure of balance - not things equalling each other in average, but things being equal in general. It's sort of the difference between me taking $0.25 cents from you verses me taking $100 from you except if you roll a 1 on a 10000 die, when I'll give you 1 million. Sure, they may be equal on average - but one is going to make you very unhappy very very often. If we're designing a game, we should focus on removing designs that make our customers unhappy. And that's a part of balanced design I don't see brought up In this math discussion.
Orkkiller - I tried to make it clear - a balanced approach like yours (and mine) that looks for flexible options under a variety of circumstances is good balance, and one that I endorse. I take issue with those who think that math and computers wil
The main methodology of balance is to simply ensure that every choice is viable in some way from a powergamer viewpoint. Basically that means that for every class, ability, etc. You need to be able to give both a reason why you wouldn't want to take it over similar abilities and a reason you would, and that reasoning must be entirely mechanical based.
Then you get to actual monster design, which is honestly a part a lot of people gloss over. It's absolutely necessary to have a variety of challenges. A big reason 3E spellcasters were godly is because the melee superpower monster was common, but there were hardly any monsters at all that were weak agaisnt melee. So naturally against a bestiary of stuff weak agasint ranged attacks, the ranged attackers are naturally going to be better.
The main methodology of balance is to simply ensure that every choice is viable in some way from a powergamer viewpoint. Basically that means that for every class, ability, etc. You need to be able to give both a reason why you wouldn't want to take
)But, overall the feeling is mutual. Balance is actually one of feel and numbers.
