Ethos for a New Edition

[herrozerro]

I guess it's clear by now, but I'm not of your opinion on this. If every class can resolve any situation, then no class is special, really.

I dont think everyone resolving every situation is a bad thing, but everyone can resolve it differently or to different degrees.

 

[Hassassin]

Premises:

1. Some people want fighters to only do things that the laws of physics allow.
   
2. Some people want wizards to do amazing things that break the laws of physics.
   
3. Some people want fighters and wizards to be balanced.

Suggested solution:

1. Levels 1 to X: fighters only do things physically possible; wizards break the laws of physics, but are balanced.
   
2. Levels after X: Wizards get world shaking powers, but so do fighters. They are always more or less balanced
   
3. If you want a game where Wizards are superior, give them more levels.
   
4. If you want a game where Fighters are superior, give them more levels.

My preference: X is 10 or more, so that there is a range of levels for that sort of play.

 

[Skyscraper]

Premises:

1. Some people want fighters to only do things that the laws of physics allow.
2. Some people want wizards to do amazing things that break the laws of physics.
3. Some people want fighters and wizards to be balanced.

Suggested solution:

1. Levels 1 to X: fighters only do things physically possible; wizards break the laws of physics, but are balanced.
2. Levels after X: Wizards get world shaking powers, but so do fighters. They are always more or less balanced
3. If you want a game where Wizards are superior, give them more levels.
4. If you want a game where Fighters are superior, give them more levels.

My preference: X is 10 or more, so that there is a range of levels for that sort of play.

Disagreement lies even within your solution #1. The question is: how can wizards and fighters be balanced?

I contend that low-level wizards that can become invisible and higher (but still not super-high) level wizards that can conjure a wall of fire, are not balanced with a figher that is incapable of doing such feats, but it should still be acceptable in the game I would like to see. I.e. it should be acceptable that the wizard have access to some powers that the fighter cannot compete with. And, hopefully, vice-versa.

I have never liked very high level play - and I haven't played it for quite a while (apart from a few 4E short adventures). I'm not into world-shaking powers. In that other poll, I answered that "level 10" is where I think the game should cap. Of course, that kind of poll is utopic because we don't know what a level means in D&Dn yet, but it's telling with reference to previous editions. If I look at 3E for example, I liked the power of magic until you hit level 6 spells and higher (a few exceptions aside).

Now of course, all this is just my opinion and statement of my own preferences. If I say: this should work this way, that's the way I'd like for it to be. I fully understand that my cup of tea is not someone else's, and that's fine.

 

[Hassassin]

Disagreement lies even within your solution #1. The question is: how can wizards and fighters be balanced?

I contend that low-level wizards that can become invisible and higher (but still not super-high) level wizards that can conjure a wall of fire, are not balanced with a figher that is incapable of doing such feats, but it should still be acceptable in the game I would like to see. I.e. it should be acceptable that the wizard have access to some powers that the fighter cannot compete with. And, hopefully, vice-versa.

Balance doesn't mean they do same things, just that neither is significantly better than another. If they find out invisibility (or spell X) is too powerful, I'm fine with it going up a couple of levels or being nerfed down.

 

[Skyscraper]

I dont think everyone resolving every situation is a bad thing, but everyone can resolve it differently or to different degrees.

Sure. You can have a fighter hack down a door with his axe instead of the rogue picking the lock. Or the fighter battle a dozen orcs one by one, instead of the wizard fireballing them all in one shot. Those are situations where once class can do something less effeciently.

There are also situations where one class might simply be unable to accomplish something. No one can raise a dead comrade except a cleric. No one can fly over the cliff except the wizard.

I think one solution to making each class interesting is bringing back the glass canon approach to the wizard. They used to have way less hit points than the fighters. That was an interesting weakness. When you faced off against half a dozen opponents, you needed your martial characters to block the melee opponents and prevent them from reaching your casters. And you needed to reach their casters before they took out your key characters. That was great

I like the counter-magic approach too. 3E invited that into the game, the spontaneous counterspelling. But it existed beforehand also, in non-spontaneous form: I recall in our 1E games, that our mages and clerics always had Dispel Magic spells handy and used them against static magical defenses (runes) but also in battle to remove conditions (hold person being pretty darn frequent), remove paralysis was another spell used super frequently in that respect. The point being, you can have magic be efficient, but if the opponents have ways to counter it, whereas the swordplay is pretty much unavoidable, like it was in previous editions pre-high levels, then the martial characters are very important to have for that reason also.

 

[Skyscraper]

Balance doesn't mean they do same things, just that neither is significantly better than another. If they find out invisibility (or spell X) is too powerful, I'm fine with it going up a couple of levels or being nerfed down.

I understand that. What I'm saying is: it's okay for invisibility to be strong, no need to nerf it. It's ok for the fighter to deal out tons of damage with his sword (if that's his schtick). It's okay for a class to have something unrivaled by the others at a given level. That's what makes that class unique. If you nerf spells and other abilities for any class until "neither class is significantly better than the other" as you suggest, you get classes that are non-distinctive. You get 4E-style classes that essentially do the same thing, in a way explained (somewhat) differently.

Hoping for both power-balance and distinctiveness is utopic IMHO. I think you need to accept that some classes will be better than others in some circumstances. I think that any balance reached should be in trying to have all classes shine in some circumstances. That would be achieved by have all classes be flavorful and having cool mechanics to support that flavor. That is the balance I would like to have. The in-game, DPS balance is something I do not really position high in my priorities, after having experienced it in 4E. It's like my 3 and 5 year old kids with whom I need to count smarties when I hand them out, to make sure they have the same number: useless. If I gave them each 10 smarties, they'd be very happy. If I give 10 to one and 15 to the other, one of them is going to cry out. The absolute necessity of balance is a human trait that I find we must stop to pursue in any and all circumstances, and look at the big picture more. Why is my fighter unacceptable in itself? I'm glad that the other PC wizard is able to cross that pit by flying invisibly. My turn now? Okay, I have my rope, can I find some what to cross without the sentry seeing me? Wow, this is going to be fun... Once on the other side, we'll slap hands and go on to kill the sentry together. And I'll be protecting the wizard form the dog at his feet, to make sure that the animal doesn't prevent my pal from casting paralysis upon the sentry.

 

[Hassassin]

Hoping for both power-balance and distinctiveness is utopic IMHO.

Ok, then it's just a semantic disagreement: I still consider them balanced, if they are equally effective only on average and not in individual situations.

 

[Sunseeker]

I recognize the problem you highlight however: you don't want players to remain idle for long. I think the solution is to avoid game mechanics that require long resolution times, and to avoid engaging in long-winded actions that call for a single type of skill or character attribute. I think one example of this kind of problem is stealthy infiltration. I've seen many times, games where the rogue (or other stealthy PC) explores ahead of the group and everyone else remains idle while the rogue explores.

I don't really feel that your two positions are really as far apart as you think, I think you're just looking at them from different angles. All players should be able to reasonably contribute and participate in any given situation. Noone should sit around and be idle, nor should IMO, they have to "go do something else"(unrelated to what's going on).

Honestly, the solution is far from obvious. Take the stealth example: do you make all PCs capable of sneaking somehow, including the plate-mailed fighter?

I think the solution lies more in allowing the rogue to be the only stealthy PC, but to target the adventure design and DM training to avoid long-winded stealthy exploration.

What we did is either:
A: had the rogue sneak ahead and create a distraction, lowering the DC to sneak.
B: had the rogue chart a clear course, thereby lowing the DC to sneak.
C: when we really wanted to be easy: we added the rogue's sneak bonus to our own rolls, or give all players a hefty bonus to their own sneak because of how well the rogue snuck.

Either way: everyone got to sneak. Noone had to "wait around" for the rogue to clear a path for them. And I think that's the key, any solution that keeps the party involved in some fashion, is a good solution to the problem.

To me, class distinctiveness and balance are mutually exclusive.

That however, is a point I personally am going to have to vehemently disagree with you on.

 

[Dannager]

I guess it's clear by now, but I'm not of your opinion on this. If every class can resolve any situation, then no class is special, really.

In all seriousness, though, the ability of every character to contribute in a meaningful fashion does not mean that no character is special.

 

[grimslade]

The whole wizard/codzilla as gods and the rest clods makes for a darn boring game for me. It railroads campaigns into being all about high magic and bending the world to the will of spellcasters. I would like to see wizards still be masters of the arcane throwing out timestop and meteor swarm, but I would like to see fighters get similar awe inspiring high level options. I want Conan level of last man standing in a clash of armies. I want to see rogues who disappear right before your eyes and put knives in all your organs in alphabetical order. There won't ever be a similar level to Wish but wish needs to be a ritual anyways. A high level fighter needs to be a dominant figure just like a high level spellcaster. So have abilities that can counter spells, special talents to resisting being thrown out of the timestream, resisting domination, absorbing disintegrate. Fighters are tough, maybe they have a different category of save results like 3E (old, mid?) school evasion for rogues. 1/2 on fail, none on save.