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: 6246286" data-attributes="member: 5143">The AEDU system in 4e certainly did create balance as it gave an equal number of options.  This meant that one player wasn't stuck with one option while another player had 30.When you standardize the number of options and the amount each option can be used, it then becomes MUCH easier to balance options against each other.  A game where one character can simply make basic attacks for 1d8+4 every round forever and another one can use a selection of daily recharge abilities that do 10d6 points of damage is difficult to balance effectively.  The 10d6 damage abilities are much stronger...but they are of limited use.  Limited use is a disadvantage...but how MUCH of an disadvantage?  Is is appropriate for them to do 10d6 damage or is being limited only worth double damage from the other class?  That depends on the number of rounds of combat you fight each day.  That number varies from group to group.Given all that unpredictability and variability, it's difficult to come up with a number that is truly "balanced".  AEDU minimizes the variability which enables the designers to more accurately determine the balance between abilities.  This enables each class to feel just as powerful as every other class: Equal opportunities to shine and abilities having a similar effect on combat.Plus AEDU makes each ability into a self contained stat block.  This means it was much more difficult to stack abilities together to break the balance of the game.  For instance, gaining a new power gives you more options but doesn't change the effectiveness of your old powers at all.  An ability worded like most were in 3.5e: "When making an attack, you can now add 1d6 points of damage" allowed all sorts of wiggle room...Spells were attacks, you could add 1d6 to them now...even it it might not have been the intention of the ability.I'm virtually positive that AEDU came out of a desire for balance.  The early days of 4e came out of surveys given to RPGA players, specifically Living Greyhawk players.  The number one concern of nearly every player I spoke to at the time was how 3.5e was completely unbalanced.  The original and earliest playtests of 4e were given to specifically chosen RPGA members(mostly Triad members, authors, Circle members, and trusted friends of the others).  The complaints about 3.5e at the time were all the same: Why did Wizards, Druids, and Clerics get the ability to change the entire universe 20 times a day while Fighters had one move: Swing your sword.I was friends with a number of playtesters and although they were sworn to silence, I knew what kind of game they liked.  They were pushing the entire time for more balance and more equality between the classes.  AEDU was an elegant solution to help balance the game.  Give all the classes the exact same structure to minimize the differences.I don't believe symmetry is needed at all.  You CAN balance classes that aren't created using the exact same structure...it is just more difficult and more prone to problems when you make small mistakes designing the game.  The key to balance is minimizing variability.  This can be done using other methods.</blockquote>

Verification