If that's the only difference, I agree. In practice there should be many ways they are different, with resource used only one aspect. All I'm saying is that if you leave that aspect out by making all characters use the same resource mechanic, you have even less differentiation.
Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game
- Thread starter Crazy Jerome
- Start date
If that's the only difference, I agree. In practice there should be many ways they are different, with resource used only one aspect. All I'm saying is that if you leave that aspect out by making all characters use the same resource mechanic, you have even less differentiation.
Different mechanics for the sake of different mechanics doesn't seem a sensible idea. Different mechanics because you need to resolve different effects is viable, though I'm not convinced that it's as necessary as some people like to claim.
But it's not just for the sake of different mechanics. There is both an in-game and a meta-game reason for why those resources work differently.
Hussar
Legend
Yes and no.
Mechanically, there is virtually no difference between using a throwing axe and using a club in 3e D&D. Granted, one is slashing and one is bludgeoning, but, the number of times that actually comes up in game is very, very rare.
Does that mean that one character who uses hand axes and the other character using clubs aren't distinct from each other? I would argue that they actually are rather distinct. The axe guy and the club guy get described in very different ways. But, mechanically, they're virtually identical. They certainly don't use any distinct mechanics.
Heck, there's really no difference in most weapons - a longsword does not use any mechanics that a dagger doesn't. Yet is that knife fighter the same as the sword fighter?
Yes, you are correct in the if you use the same mechanics for two different classes, you have less options for differentiating those two classes. But, do we really need to make them that distinct to make the difference?
Every skill based game in existence says no.
I would argue that the there is little to no distinction to weapons to most players, I would also argue that not mechanically differentiating weapons is a weakness in D&D, and the little that we do have (slashing vs bludgeoning) serves to help differentiate decisions in the game, and that this is usually a good thing.
I wouldn't call it "mechanics for the sake of mechanics", but I would argue that vital choices (character classes, races etc) should have features, powers, restriction that work work mechanically differently from eachother to help add to the mystery of the game and make the choices players make feel more relevant.
Everything needs to be done within moderation, I dont want millions of wacky mechanics just because. But I also feel that the "squishing" of so many choices and their mechanics into one, as seen in the latest edition, was the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I agree with this. To use earlier examples, I find the OD&D "every weapon is a stylistic concern only, they all do 1d6" to be fine for certain games, but hardly universal. However, the AD&D weapon speed factors are unnecessarily fiddly for what they do. So I'd like something in between.
Let's look at melee weapons only for a moment. In D&D, you could rate every weapon with one or more of these qualities (where a missing quality equates to standard in that category):
- Speed - fast, slow, or not especially either.
- Reach - long, short, or not espeically either.
- Damage type - pierce, slash, bash, hack (heavy blades such as most axes as well as some polearms and swords)
And to bring this explicitly back on topic, this matters because you want enough flavorful elements to satisfy most people, but you want them parsed out in a relatively simple format that gives most weapons a reasonable niche in which to function. In contrast, the old weapon speed chart tried to go ultra-realistic in some respects, while ignoring that the other unrealistic things in the underlying system invalidated certain weapons unfairly. The middle ground is critical here.
Last edited:
Neonchameleon
Legend
That depends. "Vancian" Casting, I get - and unlike "Roll weapon attacks and spell saves" is a distinction without a difference. And if you are playing a game like the excellent Pathfinder Beginner's Box it is a nice feature. On the other hand, one of the side effects of Vancian Magic (with trivial cost - as classically implemented in D&D) is that it makes the game much less extensible; you can not add spells to the world that are functionally different without skewing the game balance. If you have rituals with a cost to cast every time then you just need to get that balance right. But with no long term cost to cast and a class whose power comes from flexible preparation, every single spell you add to the game is potentially one more situation with the right spell for the job.
Vancian as well as LFQW has a vast metagame restriction attached.
Come play 4e Essentials. Every weapon expertise feat has a rider differentiating the weapons. Rapiers and longswords in the hands of the martially uninterested are almost identical - but add a couple of feats and how you use them most effectively becomes very different.
I question whether it was far enough. The combat sticks out too much.
There are mechanics that make adding spells balanced, but they haven't been explored a lot. One example are the Initiate feats in 3.5 PGtF. Each is a feat that gives Clerics of a certain faith both a thematic ability and a few spells to add to their spell list.
Another way to balance new spells would be to have them work like school specialization. To get access to these spells in Races of Stone (in effect specializing in earth magic) you have to pick a prohibited school.
BryonD
Hero
I find it very interesting that you say THAT when just shortly before you said:
I've played in a lot of 3E games over the past decade plus. There have been druids and clerics in them, played well, and there have been monks and fighters in them. (Not a whole lot of monks, but for purely player preference reasons, and still some.) The monks and fighters were not remotely "left behind".
Are you telling me my game does not exist? Or do you retract your previous statement? Or are you simply holding a massive double standard?
I completely agree that 3E doesn't have a safety net and in giving DMs the freedom to do whatever they want they have also given DMs freedom to run games that suck. I don't for one second question that you may have experienced games that sucked exactly as you describe. But, the thing is, other people DO REALLY find that 4E sucks in ways that don't apply to you.
As Mearls put it, 4E told people if you want to play guitar you should play thrash metal. If you happen to be someone who WANTS to play thrash metal, then you won't see any problem. But you need to look around at the broader horizon and realize that it isn't impossible with significantly different expectations to find the character that does exist in your game to completely fail to live up to what other personal expectations aim for. And that says nothing remotely negative about either side.
I agree that 3E didn't work for you.
That doesn't mean that 3E monks were "the load".
I agree that your 4E character works for you.
That doesn't mean that 4E offers the range of experiences that the overall gaming market demands.
Great statement, but Im going to twist it around. As much as giving the DM freedom can result in games that suck, it can also result is games that are spectacular. If I look back over my 3 decades of playing RPG's and reflect on which moments I remember, the are never the moments when the "rules were balanced"...they were always the times the characters and DM thought outside the box.
This is why Im not obsessed with game balance as a top focus for 5e. As much as it creates framework for game mechanics, it has never once contributed to the great moments our group has experienced over the years.
I think there is something from every edition that can be learned. 4e was great in many regards, but not great in others. To interpret 4e as the be-all and end all of game design is just design with blinkers on, to assume it did nothing to contribute to game design is just naive.
The hard thing for all here is to step out of our "my experience = the correct experience" thought mode and learn to absorb what other people are saying. I think what you have said here expresses that very eloquently.
