I hate game balance!

[wayne62682]

The new balance of 4e is what makes it leaps and bounds above 3.x. While the OP's argument is rational in the sense of the real world, in the context of a game played for fun, it's NOT FUN to sit out because another PC can do everything you can, and then some. Would it be more realistic? Probably. However, I would gladly sacrifice realism for enjoyment. I don't know about you, but everything the OP said he hated about 4e, I like, and I was a powergamer in 3.5.

 

[Ethalias]

Not really, but no sweat.

Heheh Tactfully and succinctly put! Could you/anyone attempt a v brief potted definition of narrativist, how it relates to Simulationist and Gamist, and/or point me in the direction of one?

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Is this discussion really about "balance", or is it actually about niche protection?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Nah, there's a pretty huge difference between "anyone can do it" and "anyone who invests feats, has the appropriate ability scores, and who goes out of their way to find and learn individual rituals can do it."

Its like arguing that anyone in 3e can cast spells because you can multiclass into Wizard at level 2. Maybe true to a logician, but not true in the way the speaker intended.

I disagree. There's no stat requirement, just skill checks. Most of those are either 'arcane' which is a pre-req for casting the ritual in the first place, and with 4e's skill system, have a skill requirement isn't the burden it was in 3e for non-skillmonkeys. Plus, the skill check is usually not pass/fail, it adds to the presumed success. Acquiring the ritual itself isn't much of a burden, especially if there is already a wizard in the party to bogart spells from. GM fiat to prevent a ritual isn't a rules issue.

In 3e, you had to multiclass, incurring XP penalties where applicable, and delay/lose benefits to the primary class, have the relevant stat, high enough class level (as opposed to character level in 4e), and still had to acquire the spell. You did gain combat spells, but the effetive lag in caster level hurt that in many cases.

 

[buzz]

Heheh Tactfully and succinctly put! Could you/anyone attempt a v brief potted definition of narrativist, how it relates to Simulationist and Gamist, and/or point me in the direction of one?

So as not to derail (further) this thread, I'd recommend:

http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html (especially "Aside: GNS")
http://swingpad.com/dustyboots/wordpress/?cat=11

 

[Ethalias]

So as not to derail (further) this thread, I'd recommend:

http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html (especially "Aside: GNS")
http://swingpad.com/dustyboots/wordpress/?cat=11

You, sir, are an officer and a gentleman.

I am in your debt.

 

[buzz]

You, sir, are an officer and a gentleman.

Sweet, a promotion!

 

[Cadfan]

I disagree. There's no stat requirement, just skill checks.

13 Int or you can't have the feat in the first place.

In 3e, you had to multiclass, incurring XP penalties where applicable, and delay/lose benefits to the primary class, have the relevant stat, high enough class level (as opposed to character level in 4e), and still had to acquire the spell. You did gain combat spells, but the effetive lag in caster level hurt that in many cases.

Right. Like I said, its technically a true statement that anyone in 3e can cast spells (because they could multiclass into wizard), but it doesn't tell you very much because the real world practicalities of the situation mean that only some characters actually DO cast spells.

Likewise, in 4e, sure, all it costs to use rituals (assuming you don't mind doing so badly) is training in either Religion or Arcana, 13 Intelligence, the Ritual Caster feat, and some gold expense in buying rituals and learning them. But as a practical matter, there are lots of reasons why not everyone actually WILL be casting rituals. A 13 Int isn't a trivial investment for many character classes. It costs several feats, which they might want to spend elsewhere. And it isn't all that useful if you've got a wizard in the party who can cast the same rituals better, since most rituals provide group benefits instead of individual benefits.

 

[Greg K]

I only hate balance when it runs amok and results in wtf moments that requrire turning a blind eye or hand waving to explain. 3e may have had some of these moment, but 4e has gone too far in this direction with per encounter/daily abilities, healing potions and healing surges, daily magic items, bugbear stranglers when PC have no such exploit, +1/2 level to ability checks, etc.

With regards to spellcasting, spellcasters needed to be toned down. However, balance and verisimilitude don't need to exclusive. EN Publishing showed it was possible to accomplish this while retaining flexability and simulation/verisimilitude.

Similarly, Book of Iron Might made martial combat interesting without declaring abilities only useable per encounter or daily. It simply relied on deciding if the risk of attempting a specific maneuver was worth the payoff. And, imo, Mearl's providing a system for building maneuvers is another demonstration of better design as it provides the DM with tools and examples of maneuver building rather than giving a monster a maneuver any person can attempt and then requring DMs to either wait for a future supplement or blindly recreate the maneuver for a pc.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I've got some questions for those who hate game balance:

—How do you keep all classes relevant at every level?
—How do you keep all the characters relevant at any time?
—How do you deal with the uselessness of low-level abilities aquired at high levels?
—What about new DMs who probably can't make everyone shine effectively?