Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sylrae" data-source="post: 4380246" data-attributes="member: 48520">Nice, nathreet. 3 points for trolling.Clearly wizards only balanced the game for one particular playstyle, instead of balancing the game in a way where a number of playstyles work. The wizards balance assumes a fighter/paladin/barbarian/(lesser extent - ranger/monk), rogue, wizard/sorcerer/druid, cleric/druid. It also assumes the cleric will choose to be primarily a healer, even though the cleric has many other non-healing builds which would be more appealing to many players. It assumes players won't do any optimizing.That's alot of assumptions.1. Number of players: some groups have less than 4, I've played in a number with more than four. its the less that can cause issues occasionally.2. Build diversity: not all groups will choose that build. sometimes there are no fighters, or no rogues, or no wizards, or no clerics. which is why less than 4 can fuzzle up the default system.3. Healer Cleric: just because a cleric can heal doesn't mean he's gonna stop kicking ass to do it. They may rush into combat like a fighter and be too far from the party, or they may have used all their spells on buffs and attack spells..4. Players will optimize if they can. that means the druid will put his highest points in his 2 most necessary stats, and then use druid abilities to make the other stats irrelevent if he can. It's like whats wrong with 3.5e polymorph, except that they can cast spells while they do it. (In some cases not being able to cast spells makes no sense, like a mage who polymorphs into a drow - but thats just a logic thing.)5. Most importantly, assuming a playstyle when balancing leads to these sorts of imbalances. what about an evil campaign for instance. or a campaign like mine, where the players work together but are also autonomous, and don't HAVE to work together. Saying: "you can only play like this!" is what you imply with your statement, and that doesn't work very well in a roleplaying game. If we wanted that we would go play risk, or dragon strike, or warhammer. So do I think 'amateurs' can do it better than wizards? Yes.Do I think you could do any real design? No, because you can't even present an argument in a logical fashion, and so resort to trolling.Why? because we (some of us) know not all games are stereotypical repetetive dungeon crawls with generic spread parties and perfectly synchronized players - even in the d20 system, and we (some of us, again) know or understand that not everyone would WANT their game to be that. It's like object oriented programming. You program for the general case, providing for all the options that COULD be necessary, even if you don't end up actually using all of them. this way, if you need to further expand, or use something differently, you don't have to start all over againIf i wanted the generic play style it wouldn't be as big of an issue, but that gets boring for me after a single dungeoncrawl. which is the reason that reevaluating the balance inconsistencies (which don't come up as often in that generic playstyle) is an issue that deserves my attention.If you're going to try to argue someone is wrong ifnstead of being useful, provide actual arguments, instead of just trolling and making yourself look like an idiot.</blockquote>

Verification