Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[Crazy Jerome]

Maybe not, but if the discussed options are either 3.5 or 4E if we don't like what 4E is doing, then the other option is 3.5. I am sure many folks aren't opposed to a third completely new innovative option, but in these discussions by and large it becomes either or 3.5 or 4.

This discussion largely avoided that trap for the first 100 to 150 posts. Now, all of a sudden, we are all back to arguing over whose fault it was, basically.

If that is what it is going to be, I can't stop it from being driven into the ground, yet again. So how about we drop this part of the discussion and go back to talking about innovation?

 

[Kynn]

I am beginning to notice highly selective use of this "argument". If you want to be consistent with it, then 3E, and all prior versions, have things that didn't go so well, either.

Clearly, OD&D really blew it big time, cuz we've moved on through a half dozen different editions since then!

 

[Neonchameleon]

I already gave you two examples of themes that were unnaceptable. The classic D&D gnome illusionist, and the bard social skillmonkey, not to mention conjurers. None of these seemed overpowered to me in D&D

You want to know something that makes it hard for me to take seriously the idea that you know what you are talking about? Being told that my current character is impossible. A bard social skill monkey. And speaking as someone who's played bards in both, the 4e one is much more flexible but draws on less powerful magic - more of a skill monkey. Gnome illusionists are still possible, and quite effective both in combat and out. They no longer get to render the skill monkeys redundant (and aren't Vancian, but that's another story). As for conjurers, do you mean summoners? Because they are still around.

But seriously? Telling me that my current character (well, one of my current characters) is impossible?

But the mechanics resolve it in a certain way, and constraining the mechanics of conceptually different actions to be resolved in the same way limits their differentiation. (Even if there are other ways to differentiate!)

Are you really saying that it doesn't matter whether a character's abilities are daily or at-will powers? An at-will character is as good offensively in his 10th encounter of the day, while a character with daily powers might have used them all before that. The former is consistent, the latter can nova.

No, I'm not saying that daily and at will doesn't make a difference. I'm saying the difference I need is that they can do a different thing. Daily vs at will is a distinction with a genuine difference (but I don;t feel that this is either necessary or sufficient for magic). Who rolls the actual dice is a distinction without a difference.

But have those standards changed? If not, 5e's almost certainly doomed as well.
...
I suspect there are other things going on than Ryan Dancey's $50 million figure for 5e now. I certainly hope there are. WotC should have a pretty good argument for being an overall performer with Magic's resurgence even if D&D isn't meeting unrealistic expectations.

I hope they are but I've seen no evidence of this. Which means 5e is doomed for the same reason as 4e and probably quite a lot faster. And then D&D is going into mothballs. And he's explicitely said WoTC is not allowed to offset Magic against D&D - the lines have to stand separately.

 

[Kynn]

You want to know something that makes it hard for me to take seriously the idea that you know what you are talking about? Being told that my current character is impossible. A bard social skill monkey. ...
But seriously? Telling me that my current character (well, one of my current characters) is impossible?

Your character is an illusion. I roll to disbelieve.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Your character is an illusion. I roll to disbelieve.

You fail. Make a Fortitude save or die.

 

[Kynn]

You fail. Make a Fortitude save or die.

Uh oh.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The difference being that WoTC got 8 years out of 3.5, as did the players, and Pathfinder was born on its back and still going strong.

Let's use the correct numbers:

3.5 came out July 2003. 4e was announced Aug 2007. 4 years, 1 month.

4e came out May 2008 and 5e was announced Jan 2012. 3 years, 8 months.

3.0 came out in August 2000 and I can't find the announcement date of 3.5e, but since 3.5 came out in July 2003, the entire run was only 2 years, 11 months.

Even if you add 3.0 and 3.5 together as one edition(which I wouldn't, given that EACH of them received a full compliment of splat books), you get exactly 7 years from the 3.0 PHB to the announcement of 4e.

Given that 1e lasted 11 years and 2e lasted 11 years, you could say that 3.0 edition was the worst failure of D&D.

 

[Mattachine]

Let's use the correct numbers:

3.5 came out July 2003. 4e was announced Aug 2007. 4 years, 1 month.

4e came out May 2008 and 5e was announced Jan 2012. 3 years, 8 months.

3.0 came out in August 2000 and I can't find the announcement date of 3.5e, but since 3.5 came out in July 2003, the entire run was only 2 years, 11 months.

Even if you add 3.0 and 3.5 together as one edition(which I wouldn't, given that EACH of them received a full compliment of splat books), you get exactly 7 years from the 3.0 PHB to the announcement of 4e.

Given that 1e lasted 11 years and 2e lasted 11 years, you could say that 3.0 edition was the worst failure of D&D.

In these discussions, I include OD&D, 1.5 (Unearthed Arcana and later books for AD&D), and 2.5 (Player's Option). The early editions, as editions, didn't really last 11 years each.

When Unearthed Arcana came out, it really changed the game: a bunch of new spells (including stoneskin and Melf's acid arrow and Evard's tentacles), new level limits, new subraces, new classes/split classes, epic-level druids, changes to rangers, weapon specialization for fighters, character backgrounds, and then nonweapon proficiencies (in the last couple boooks),

In 2nd edition, Player's Option Skills and Powers similarly made big changes, and the supplements that followed revised and changed many aspects of the game, including the new psionics system and epic level characters (who got feats).

 

[Bluenose]

Only if they work exactly the same. What you originally quoted was:



If magic uses spell slots, martial is at will and psionics use power points, they all have a very different feel that the mechanics reinforce. Martial is consistent, psionics is adaptable, magic forces you to think ahead. Even if all of them have an ability that deals 1d6 damage.

See, if the difference between someone attacking a target within 30' for 1d6 damage is that in one case you expend a spell slot, in the second you expend a power point, and in the third you expend a piece of ammunition, then I don't think there's any significant difference in what it feels like you're doing. Considering the number of complaints about every class feeling the same in 4e where that is often the actual case, then I'm pretty certain that your opinion is not a majority one. I'm quite certain that people who say they want classes that don't all feel the same are more often demanding that those classes do different things than they're demanding that they have different mechanics to do exactly the same thing.

 

[hanez]

Gnome illusionists are still possible, and quite effective both in combat and out. They no longer get to render the skill monkeys redundant (and aren't Vancian, but that's another story).

Im talking about the players handbook, I'm sure it possible in some optional splat book, after they realized some of the systems philosophy problems or just wanted to sell more books. I grant you I havent went beyond core in 4e, but I am arguing what I want to be core in 5e.

And btw I know WOTC wants me to believe everything is core, I choose to disbelieve that.

Anyways, there really isn't an "argument" here, the classes were to constrained to some rigid mechanical guideline in my opinion to make the class D&D characters I like to play. Vancian is an essential part of being an illusionist, in my world that was effected by the history of D&D. I may be the only person who believes that, but its still true for my campaign.