sorry about that I wrote the original in word over the holidays then pasted it into the post. I am not too sure how to stop it from auto changing or whatever it is that it does.
Doing Wrong Part 2: Fighters, Wizards and Balance Oh My!
- Thread starter Meatboy
- Start date
sorry about that I wrote the original in word over the holidays then pasted it into the post. I am not too sure how to stop it from auto changing or whatever it is that it does.
Copy it into notepad (or another text editor) and then copy and paste from there. You'll lose all formatting, but that's probably fine.
keterys
First Post
True... a bolt of fire can get your campfire going, so you can start cooking dinner more quickly. Create a signal fire to summon allies. Get the treants and pixies angry at you.
A sword can help you parry, so you stay alive.
Legends are made of Excalibur and Goblin-Cleaver. A wand is just a stick of wood. Your bias is showing a little strongly
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
You must have the white background. I have the grey, and I had to highlight your whole post to read it easily.
I get that you like it that way, but I'm trying to figure out why it's Better. But I don't think I can figure it out, so I wanted to ask you. Can you explain that to me? As always, play what you like
Okay. What about all the people who don't play this way? I'd wager that's quite a bit of current players, too. The early editions started that way; what about everyone else that doesn't use it as a Hardcore Diablo RPG? And I say that as someone who enjoy Hardcore -you die and you're dead, start over- in Diablo a lot more than normal mode. And I include "RPG" in there because nothing you said prevents RPing, it just limits it to the confines of typical Hardcore Diablo play ("characters roaming around“dungeons”, looting, killing and pretty much just trying to see how far they could push it before they died, either through bad choices, bad luck or some combination thereof").
I get that you like it that way, but I'm trying to figure out why it's Better. But I don't think I can figure it out, so I wanted to ask you. Can you explain that to me? As always, play what you like
MortalPlague
Adventurer
Use Wordpad. You don't lose all your formatting.
delericho
Legend
Ideally, there should indeed be an "easy mode" and a "hard mode". But, ideally this would be divorced from archetype - there should be an "easy fighter", a "hard fighter", an "easy wizard" and a "hard wizard".
Bear in mind that groups will most commonly be made up of players of similar skill, and yet will need all the roles covered. So, how do you decide which novice player gets stuck with the "hard mode" wizard? How do you decide which expert player gets stuck with the "easy mode" fighter?
I don't deny that there's some truth in what you're saying, especially with regard to earlier editions. But that doesn't stop it being bad design.
Bear in mind that groups will most commonly be made up of players of similar skill, and yet will need all the roles covered. So, how do you decide which novice player gets stuck with the "hard mode" wizard? How do you decide which expert player gets stuck with the "easy mode" fighter?
I don't deny that there's some truth in what you're saying, especially with regard to earlier editions. But that doesn't stop it being bad design.
Choosing an "advanced" class should absolutely not be "rewarded" with more power; certainly not intentionally. Getting to play the specific character you want to play in the way you want to play it is completely reward enough. Wanting to not deal with a bunch of rules is not synonymous with wanting to be less effective, and thus have less agency as a player.
Imbalance between PC classes is bad, always, and never justified. It should only ever happen due to designer mistakes, never intention.
Differing amounts of complexity is potentially good, if done right. Which would include having both "basic" and "advanced" classes (or sub-classes) available for each major archetype.
Imbalance between PC classes is bad, always, and never justified. It should only ever happen due to designer mistakes, never intention.
Differing amounts of complexity is potentially good, if done right. Which would include having both "basic" and "advanced" classes (or sub-classes) available for each major archetype.
You must have the white background. I have the grey, and I had to highlight your whole post to read it easily.
Okay. What about all the people who don't play this way? I'd wager that's quite a bit of current players, too. The early editions started that way; what about everyone else that doesn't use it as a Hardcore Diablo RPG? And I say that as someone who enjoy Hardcore -you die and you're dead, start over- in Diablo a lot more than normal mode. And I include "RPG" in there because nothing you said prevents RPing, it just limits it to the confines of typical Hardcore Diablo play ("characters roaming around“dungeons”, looting, killing and pretty much just trying to see how far they could push it before they died, either through bad choices, bad luck or some combination thereof").
I get that you like it that way, but I'm trying to figure out why it's Better. But I don't think I can figure it out, so I wanted to ask you. Can you explain that to me? As always, play what you like
Actually I never said that I liked that kind of game at all. I have been saying that orignally dnd was a kick in the door style dungeon hack but many people, even the creators, quickly abandonded that style of game for a more story driven roleplay game. The problem being that a lot of the rules weren't designed to for that kind of game, especially the classes and how they work and more specifically how they were balanced. Over the editions the rules have changed to reflect the other kinds of games that people play but they have kept a lot of the same assumptions about what classes should be able to do and how they are balanced. One of the biggest things is that play starts at level one and players have to "earn" the power that is intrisic to magic. Many people, myself included, start at levels other than one. I've come to believe that this has a negative impact on play by removing checks that the designers used to balance casters. Chief among those that if you want to be a powerful wizard you had to be a sucky wizard first then earn your way to power.
This came to a head with 3.x with cries of the "fighter sucks" or "wizards/clerics/druids are super over powered." To which I say yes once you remove all the things designed to keep their power in balance they are indeed powerful. This then led to 4e where every class was "balanced" against each other. But now the fighter and other classes which originally were mechanically quite simple have pages and pages of mechanics to balance them with casters. This can be off putting to people trying to get into the game for the first time.
Its funny that you should bring up Diablo because I think Diablo leverages the whole "magic users are fragile yet powerful" balance point better than dnd does. If you want to be a powerful chain lightning wielding Sorceress in D2 that can clear out entire dungoens in seconds you need to start at level 1 and play (and probably die... a lot) until you have earned that power. Regardless of whether or not you play hard core or soft core.
