D&D 5th Edition How much should 5e aim at balance? - Page 51





  1. #501
    Quote Originally Posted by hamstertamer View Post
    It's not a myth but a playstyle conflict. Because of your (former) group's playstyle you were unable to play with spellcasters. I have no idea what playstyle could force a DM to "ban wizards, clerics, and druids altogether from his 3rd edition campaign" but I have a feeling it's drastically different from any D&D game I've ever played.
    I mentally ban myself from wizards, clerics, and druids in 3.X. It's too easy and I'd cause the DM to tear their hair out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahnehnois View Post
    I think you've got it backwards. The problems don't exist in the rules. They may exist in your game, but that doesn't mean that they are a natural, expected, or obligatory consequence of using that rules system.
    The problems are in the rules - or are you really saying that the monk is on a par with the Aggressively Hegmonizing Ursine Swarm?

    Whatever anyone says on the internet, it's hard to believe that a game that has been and continues to be as successful as modern D&D (including 3e and earlier editions that had similar takes on class design, as well as Pathfinder and a variety of other d20 offshoots) could be as fundamentally flawed as you are implying that it is.
    Because popularity is always a measure of quality rather than marketing. Right.

    The real story is this:
    Balance is created by the DM and the players, not the rules.
    The real story is this. The rules design should be an attempt at balance that keeps the variation in power significantly less than the variation in player skill. And doesn't then artificially reward system mastery by presenting traps for newbies.

 

  • #502
    I mentally ban myself from wizards, clerics, and druids in 3.X. It's too easy and I'd cause the DM to tear their hair out.
    I guess that's really the only way to ban them because wizards, clerics, and druids only exist in your mind (mentally) as opposed to physically.

  • #503
    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    The problems are in the rules - or are you really saying that the monk is on a par with the Aggressively Hegmonizing Ursine Swarm?
    Exactly equal to in every conceivable scenario? No. Close enough for jazz? Yes.

    I don't know of any base classes that don't need substantial revision, but I also don't know of any that I wouldn't play without said revision.

    Because popularity is always a measure of quality rather than marketing. Right.
    And your apparently superior measure of quality is...

    The rules design should be an attempt at balance that keeps the variation in power significantly less than the variation in player skill.
    On that level, they can hardly ever fail. The variation in player skill (and other relevant qualities) is enormous.

    And doesn't then artificially reward system mastery by presenting traps for newbies.
    Cutting down on the huge tables and volumes of options would be good for the newbies.
    "Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose"

  • #504
    Aenosis, how is having half the D&D market dominating? Unless you're going to argue that 3e/Pathfinder players are significantly outnumbering 4e players (and I'd LOVE to hear where you pulled this information from), at best guess, the divide seems pretty even between 4e and 3e/Pathfinder.

    So, playing the popularity card seems a bit strange. If you cannot actually defend your point without an appeal to popularity, what does that say about your point?

    See, this is the problem I always have with this discussion.

    Player 1: I'm having serious balance issues with this game. Here's what's causeing these issues - ((shows a shopping list of concrete examples)).

    Player 2: Well, I never have these problems. But, I can't actually tell you how to fix your problems. So, any problems you have must be your own fault.

    How is this productive? When people bitch about 4e, it's typically trivially easy to shift 4e mechanics to fit what they want. You want longer healing rates? Here's how to do it. You want more associated mechanics? Avoid these powers and use Essentials. You want more resource tracking? Ok, fine, track resources.

    By and large, the fixes are so ridiculously easy that it boggles my mind that anyone actually bitches about them. And what makes it even funnier is when WOTC produces virtually the same mechanics for 5e but simply writes them differently, everyone jumps all over themselves to show how 4e was a "mistake" and WOTC has "learned their lesson". It's freaking hillarious.

    Did I personally have serious balance issues in 3e? Not often. Although, to be fair, that was because my players made choices that were generally in line with baseline expectations. Could they break the system? Oh yeah. In a minute. All it took was swapping out the paladin for the cleric to show how ridiculously overpowered that was.

    But, while the solution can be, "don't break the game please", there is a possibly better solution of, "well, let's plug these GIGANTIC FREAKING HOLES in the mechanics so people don't accidentally fall into the Ha Ha."
    The rules don't give the DM their authority. The consent of the players does. - Mallus

  • #505
    Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
    Aenosis
    Quick aside here: Seriously, you can't use copy/paste? A lot of people on these boards have hard to spell screen names; these are fantasy rpg boards. (Or is there an Aenosis here?).

    how is having half the D&D market dominating? Unless you're going to argue that 3e/Pathfinder players are significantly outnumbering 4e players (and I'd LOVE to hear where you pulled this information from), at best guess, the divide seems pretty even between 4e and 3e/Pathfinder.
    In sales, not in players. Sales that also ignore the entire group of extant 3e players, and the fact that while many may be using DDI for a subscription fee, PF is free, and there are also a variety of other 3e-based systems out there. No one knows the numbers, but I feel comfortable in my educated guess. That is all.

    So, playing the popularity card seems a bit strange. If you cannot actually defend your point without an appeal to popularity
    I'm pretty sure you could ignore that statement and still see the point.

    By and large, the fixes are so ridiculously easy that it boggles my mind that anyone actually bitches about them. And what makes it even funnier is when WOTC produces virtually the same mechanics for 5e but simply writes them differently, everyone jumps all over themselves to show how 4e was a "mistake" and WOTC has "learned their lesson".
    I don't think they've learned their lesson.

    Did I personally have serious balance issues in 3e? Not often.


    But, while the solution can be, "don't break the game please", there is a possibly better solution of, "well, let's plug these GIGANTIC FREAKING HOLES in the mechanics so people don't accidentally fall into the Ha Ha."
    So why not just do that?
    "Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose"

  • #506
    Quote Originally Posted by hamstertamer View Post
    It's not a myth but a playstyle conflict. Because of your (former) group's playstyle you were unable to play with spellcasters. I have no idea what playstyle could force a DM to "ban wizards, clerics, and druids altogether from his 3rd edition campaign" but I have a feeling it's drastically different from any D&D game I've ever played.
    Mostly the "playstyle" difference is levels. Druids are overpowered from level 1, but they're not truly offensively overpowered until level 9, and it doesn't become game-breakingly absurd until level 13 or so. Wizards start becoming sick monsters of death in there too.

    Really, there's this sweet spot from levels 5-8 where classes have a good number of options and the system works pretty well, all things considered.

  • #507
    Registered User
    Novice (Lvl 1)

    shadowmane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Salisbury, North Carolina
    Posts
    42
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore shadowmane
    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    The real story is this. The rules design should be an attempt at balance that keeps the variation in power significantly less than the variation in player skill. And doesn't then artificially reward system mastery by presenting traps for newbies.
    You can't achieve that without making the game so boring, nobody would want to play it. The beauty of this game is that the fighter is powerful at lower levels and the MU is powerful at higher levels. Somewhere in the middle, there is balance. But to try to have the fighter and the MU have the same amount of power at each level is a trick that even Gigax didn't achieve. Balance, as I said before, is over-rated. It breaks the game. Its found at the table between DM and players, not in the rule book.

  • #508
    Registered User
    Gallant (Lvl 3)



    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Qc
    Posts
    90
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Ignore The Choice
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahnehnois View Post
    If that designer was hired because of a business decision to move away from the OGL and his pitch was to try to bash the OGL version of the game into obscurity and make a radically different and incompatible game that everyone would have to switch to, it's less than a playstyle problem. It's a business problem. They wanted to convince people to pay a subscription fee for a game that had been partially available for free and to buy a new edition while the old one was still warm on the press. They created reasons for people to spend money on their products. Addressing gameplay issues is not likely to have been a major consideration in any of this.
    The designer I obliquely mentionned was Mike Mearls. The design leads for 4E were all in-house guys from the 3E era; Bruce Cordell has been working on D&D since the TSR days. Everything I read in the ramp-up to 4E was to the effect that they knew, from consumer-survey data and their own internal testing, that certain elements of 3E were out of whack because of specific changes from 1/2E to 3E (the way saves worked vs. the DC of spells, monster hp ballooning due to Con modifiers multiplied by hit dice, etc.).

    Of course, there was a marketing strategy behind the new edition; no company worth their salt would launch a new product without making a pitch to consumers, but there were reasons for the switchover from 3rd to 4th edition beyond "let's make some cash". To paraphrase Andy Collins (I believe) "when you design to circumvent the game's problematic features, it's time to change the game."

    Also, to say that 3.5 was still "warm on the press" might be misrepresenting things a bit: the last big rules addition to 3E was, undoubtedly, the Tome of Battle (which was inspired by the 4E design process), and before that, maybe the Tome of Magic (?). Otherwise, not that many substantive supplements came out in 2006-2007 (pretty much the same output we're seeing now, at the tail-end of 4E). So while material was being published, I wouldn't say it was all top of the line game supplements.

    I could post a many-layered argument for why 4E did what it did, but it wouldn't change anybody's mind about it, but it's not related to this particular discussion. I'll just say that "balance" was and, according to a recent article by the lead designer of the new iteration of D&D, is a concern for the design team. Heck, it was a problem Gary Gygax himself struggled with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahnehnois View Post
    Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you're playing a game you ostensibly like and you're not having fun, one which continues to dominate the rpg market (albeit partially under a different brand name), I don't get how you can conclude that it's the game's fault.
    It's the game's fault when, by the core rules, the best rogue is a wizard/sorcerer, the best melee combattant is a spellcaster, when ANY role in a party can be filled by a spellcaster, and when those same spellcasters can negate entire encounters by bypassing the game's established conflict/situation resolution mechanics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahnehnois View Post
    No one's saying it's perfect, but those extremely negative experiences suggest that you either needed to change what game you were playing or how you were playing it. I'm guessing you did at least one of those.
    I did change it. I can play any type of D&D game I want with 4th edition. It does everything every past edition could do, and the guy playing a fighter doesn't feel like a moron for having picked a non-caster class. Is it a perfect game? Hell no! But it's a lot more honest, fair and clear than 3rd edition ever was (1st and 2nd had a sort of in-game balancing system where you were never meant to play non-casters past 10th level, but it was kind of obfuscated). Again, I run bog-standard, basic adventures based largely on published materials and DM advice included in the books. To say that my experiences are due to my "playstyle", basically puts in doubt my reading comprehension or my understanding of D&D as a tabletop fantasy role-playing game. As a guy who's been playing this game for close to 20 years, I very much disagree.

    Edit: mis-attributed the quote to Andy Collins, it was James Wyatt, and the quote went: "When the game gets to the point where we know tge holes and pitfalls in the rules well enough that we constrain our design in order to avoid them, it's time for a new set of rules."
    Last edited by The Choice; Monday, 10th September, 2012 at 07:18 PM.

  • #509
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowmane View Post
    You can't achieve that without making the game so boring, nobody would want to play it. The beauty of this game is that the fighter is powerful at lower levels and the MU is powerful at higher levels. Somewhere in the middle, there is balance. But to try to have the fighter and the MU have the same amount of power at each level is a trick that even Gigax didn't achieve. Balance, as I said before, is over-rated. It breaks the game. Its found at the table between DM and players, not in the rule book.
    I believe the concept of "Deal breakers" have been discussed on this board. Things that mean the person in question won't touch the product with a barge pole, no matter what else it contains.

    This? Deal breaker.

  • #510
    Quote Originally Posted by The Choice View Post
    It's the game's fault when, by the core rules, the best rogue is a wizard/sorcerer, the best melee combattant is a spellcaster, when ANY role in a party can be filled by a spellcaster, and when those same spellcasters can negate entire encounters by bypassing the game's established conflict/situation resolution mechanics.
    Rather than respond directly to this off the wall statement:
    People are still playing 3e-style fighters, rogues, monks, etc. They're not looking at the wizard and saying that it can do the same thing better. Why do you think that is?

    Also, to say that 3.5 was still "warm on the press" might be misrepresenting things a bit
    My point is more that people complained when 3.5 was released that it was too soon and a money grab. 4e was also too soon and a money grab.

    I did change it. I can play any type of D&D game I want with 4th edition.
    Exactly. Problem solved. The only issue is when you assume that others had or will have or should have the same very specific experience.

    It does everything every past edition could do
    For you, maybe.

    and the guy playing a fighter doesn't feel like a moron for having picked a non-caster class.
    I don't feel like a moron when I play a fighter.

    Again, I run bog-standard, basic adventures based largely on published materials and DM advice included in the books. To say that my experiences are due to my "playstyle", basically puts in doubt my reading comprehension or my understanding of D&D as a tabletop fantasy role-playing game.
    That's a style right there; a pretty atypical one I'd guess. (Not that there area lot of "typical" D&D games).
    "Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose"

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 51 of 76 FirstFirst ... 414243444546474849505152535455565758596061 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Could We Have Some Balance Please
      By KarinsDad in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & Discussion
      Replies: 1
      Last Post: Sunday, 15th January, 2012, 10:39 AM
    2. Forked Thread: I hate game balance! (How elves wrecked the wizard and game balance)
      By Edena_of_Neith in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 39
      Last Post: Tuesday, 1st July, 2008, 11:15 PM
    3. Players Handbook II feats and balance (whatever balance means)
      By kobold in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & Discussion
      Replies: 2
      Last Post: Wednesday, 14th June, 2006, 07:18 PM
    4. PRC to Balance
      By Cannonfodder in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & Discussion
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: Saturday, 20th August, 2005, 01:21 PM
    5. How *do* I balance this?
      By CerberusAOD in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & Discussion
      Replies: 5
      Last Post: Friday, 23rd August, 2002, 02:14 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •