Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 5306599" data-attributes="member: 5143">In some ways, yes.  The problem is that "realism" actually is an enemy of standardization.  I mean, realistically, a guy twice my size who was trained in fighting and was really strong could beat the crap out of me, hands down.  Likely, even if I had the super power to wave my hands in the air and roast him.  He'd be faster than me and would likely have me down before I could even think about lifting my hands to start casting a spell.That's the way "realism" works.  It causes somewhat random interpretations.  If you have a power that grabs someone, can you use it on a fire elemental?  How about a frost giant?  A dire wolf?  An imp?  An ooze?  A swarm of rats?I bet if you ask 20 people those questions, you'll get 20 different sets of answers.  But that's because they are all attempting to use "realism".  And they all have a different set of standards when it comes to "realism".There are two types of balance.  One says that you will have different strengths and weaknesses and your strengths will be so powerful as to be overwhelming, and your weaknesses are so weak as you make you nearly useless to make up for your strengths.This is the method 1e-3.5e used to balance the classes.  They said "You may be a wizard and capable of destroying 20 enemies with one spell, but one hit and you die.  And if anyone ties your hands, grapples you, or puts a gag on you, you'll be as weak as a baby."It causes massive swinginess.  It causes things like "I'm sorry, Rogue.  The party is headed into an ancient dungeon with no traps.  It has oozes, constructs, and undead.  You will feel completely useless for the next 30 or 40 hours that we play.  But don't worry, I'm sure you'll feel much more useful when you go into a different dungeon filled with traps that the party couldn't get past without your help."The other form of balance involves each player being nearly equally useful in all situations.  Which is the method 4e uses.  You may do slightly less damage against that fire elemental because you chose fire spells, but you aren't going to feel useless.It's ok for there to be strengths and weaknesses as long as the difference between the strengths and weaknesses don't vary too much from the baseline.  Generally a 25% shift in damage up or down doesn't unbalance the game.On the other hand, the difference between doing 50 damage and 5 damage(or worse yet, 0 damage) is immense and overwhelming.  So is the difference between being able to do 10 damage to one creature as your average attack compared to being able to instantly kill 10 enemies at once with an 80% success ratio as a fairly average attack.Part of the balance in 4e was to get everyone closer to the baseline at all times.Otherwise you end up with situations like the examples I gave above.  Although, that might qualify as "overall game balance", it will be very little comfort to the Rogue who has to do nearly no damage for the next month or two of play.</blockquote>

Verification