Tony Vargas
Legend
OK, "Gothic Maximalism" just sounds cool.I also kinda despise minimalism and utilitarianism and adore gothic maximalism
OK, "Gothic Maximalism" just sounds cool.I also kinda despise minimalism and utilitarianism and adore gothic maximalism
If there are three pillars of play, then each class should have 3 silo'd pools of resources on which to draw, one for each pillar.While this is what I prefer, it requires the game be balanced in a way to make all the various unbalanced (asymmetric) approaches equally valid and useful.
If the game is theoretically balanced around 3 pillars, and a class is intended to excel at 1 but suck in the rest, well if the game doesnt focus on that one pillar equally or at all, then that class sucks.
For example.
I am largely in favor of asymmetrical balance because I am one of them.
But really I don't think we're few. And certainly, anyone can be a good DM.
It may be easier to silo resources simply between combat encounters and non-combat encounters (e.g., social, exploration, downtime, etc.).If there are three pillars of play, then each class should have 3 silo'd pools of resources on which to draw, one for each pillar.
I wasn't really clear. I meant in character generation/advancement.It may be easier to silo resources simply between combat encounters and non-combat encounters (e.g., social, exploration, downtime, etc.).
I think a huge part of the issue here is that spells give characters access to more tools to use in their creative planning. A fighter has only their character’s raw stats and the environment to utilize, whereas a wizard has those things, plus a huge list of spells they can use. The fighter is stuck using “my brains, his strength, and your steel, against 60 men,” while the wizard has conjure wheelbarrow and mage cloak.The definition of balance I've encountered that I've found the most useful, goes something like this: a game is better-balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both viable and meaningful.
I'm afraid that sort of balance would tend to present a lot of less viable to non-viable choices, depending on context.
D&D has certainly tried for balancing that way a lot over the decades, and has consistently failed. You can look back over D&D discussions, and find the Martial/Caster Gap, LFQW, 5MWD, and Fighter SUX discussions longer than there's been an internet.
The danger here is that choices will turn out to be less meaningful. If you all ultimately just degrade the big bad's hp at the same rate, what difference does it make who is playing what?
D&D only really tried something that might have been classed as symmetric balance once, in 4e. Like 3e, 4e put all classes on the same exp level chart, and like, 5e BA, 4e put all characters on the same basic level progression as far as d20 bonuses were concerned. Where it really mattered tho, was resources, and for the first 2 years, at least, all classes had a rough parity in unlimited, n/day and n/encounter resources. 4e avoided making class choice meaningless only at a very high price in development effort (and retaining some asymmetry!). Each class had hundreds of unique powers - the fighter and wizard, each had more powers than 5e has spells, in total. And Source radically differentiated sorts of powers, the wizards spells were implement powers that attacked no-AC defenses, the fighters' exploits, weapon powers, that mostly attacked AC, and so forth...
But, arguably, even 4e had a deeply asymmetrical aspect in formalized Roles, that differentiated classes within a Source, as well - ironically, it wasn't anything new, D&D had always had distinct duties for the "Big 4" - fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and thief - it had just never managed to make them more or less equally important before.
The fighter is stuck using “my brains, his strength, and your steel, against 60 men,” while the wizard has conjure wheelbarrow and mage cloak.
Hell yeah. I figured the words would get across what I mean, but also like…I want a modern architectural movement that merits that name.OK, "Gothic Maximalism" just sounds cool.
Tbf, if we imagine Wesley having conjured those things, I wouldn’t say he did more than the other two in that scene.I think a huge part of the issue here is that spells give characters access to more tools to use in their creative planning. A fighter has only their character’s raw stats and the environment to utilize, whereas a wizard has those things, plus a huge list of spells they can use. The fighter is stuck using “my brains, his strength, and your steel, against 60 men,” while the wizard has conjure wheelbarrow and mage cloak.
Are Wizards actually overpowered mechanically-speaking... or is it just that they often get played by stronger players who have the creativity and ingenuity to use all the tools at the Wizard's disposal? Is that something that can really be measured or taken into account? And if you depower the Wizard because smart players can overwhelm a table... does that makes things worse when regular players play Wizards?