Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5898591" data-attributes="member: 996">Nod.  I supsect it isn't.  But, then, I didn't think it'd bee possible to balance fighters & wizards in D&D, and 4e went and did it.  So I have a record of being pleasantly surprised.I'd hesitate to claim a 'general agreement' around here. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  What I'm sure won't work is starting with limited options/power, and bolting-on new options that add power.  What might work while retaining some balance is starting with a complex framework 'behind the curtain,' and using it more as a design standard to build simple-seeming classes with most choices already made.  Then, in modules, not adding complexity, but revealing it.  In that way, the 'simple' character can be played along side the 'complex' one without it being at a great disadvantage.The perfect example in 4e is Backgrounds & Themes.  The game didn't have them initially.  When they were added as options, the characters that opted for them gained additional benefits over and above those that didn't.  While those benefits were mostly pretty minor, it's still a pattern that needs to be avoided, because, if multiplied by the many modules we should probably expect from 5e, it could result in vast gulfs in effectiveness between 'simple' and 'complex' options. More concisely:  'simple' must not be inferior to 'complex.'Nod.  He also gets the gas chamber.CaW is presented as about 'thinking outside the box' and the like, finding ways to sieze.  In other words, finding overwhelming advantage or exploit weakness.  Cheating, in the context of a game.   When it's happening in the context of the imagined world, that's fine in an RPG, even though it's a game, you're not cheating, you're following the rules to model your characters 'cheating.'  When it's happening at the meta-game level, it's just powergaming, often quite disruptive and undesireable powergaming.The former sort of in-character CaW style is well-supported by a balanced - and detailed - game system.  The latter sort is supported by a poorly balanced system, and not, IMHO, at all desireable at the table, unless there's a unanimous enthusiasm for it.Magic was often 'broken' yes.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />There is nothing inately in-character 'CaW' about broken or overpowered or badly-written magic systems.  Yes, they make the metagame take on a 'CaW' feel, as everyone scrambles for the most broken thing, and the game devolves into a sort of arms race.  To make the fighter and wizard work with either a CaW or CaS aproach in-game simply requires a balanced system.  And that requires looking at casters as protagonists in a story, viable choices within a game, or established technologies in a theatre of war.  They were intentionally designed to be balanced.  Balance supports both styles.  Imbalance only suports metagaming, and makes it boring into the bargain if the imbalance is extreme.  I'm afraid you're conflating something.  D&D /is/ a game.  Of course it will need to have game balance.  That's analogous to the 'fairness' of aproaching combat as a 'sport' - a structured contest with rules, but it does not force that style of play within the imagined world the game represents.  Rogues may be balanced characters in the metagame, for instance, but to the imaginary monsters they stab in the back, they must not seem to be 'playing fair,' at all.Every edition has had it's hold-outs.  3.5 just had the SRD and Paizo waiting to cater to those hold-outs.  That's the only difference between the rejection of 4e by 3.5 hold-outs, and the rejection of 3e by AD&D hold-outs.That would be awesome.I'm not sure I'd agree.  Magic when it's being used on the protagonist's behalf by a supporting character is often that way, because the story has to be about the protagonist, not the magic that let him easily win through.  When magic finally makes it into the hands of the protagonist, it often becomes much more reliable and understandable, and much less powerful.  If it remains powerful, it's generally also in the hands of all the protagonists 'real' foes, and also any allies or co-protagonists in an ensemble.  In other words, magic has to become balanced in some sense to become the tool of the hero, rather than the tool of the plot, the helper, or the villain.In 4e, magic was made balanced by making it no more powerful (though still more versatile) than non-magical heroic abilities.  In Harry Potter, magic was balanced by making it the focus of the story - everyone who mattered (anyone who might be PC) had magic.  D&D, coming at the early stages of mage-as-protagonist made the understanible and disasterous mistake of giving PC magic-users antagonist/plot-device level magic, and trying to 'limit it down' to protagonist-apropriate levels (actually support-character-apropriate).  And the game has been an imbalanced shambles for the longest time as a result of that initial error.    Very true.  The AD&D caster was barely-playable.  The demand of healing on the Cleric kept it from being anything but support, the physical weakness and profound limitations on casting made it hard for the magic-user to contribute consistently (or at all at all levels).  3e took note of the problem and made magic more useable and consistent, as required to model a 'protagonist,' and thus also more playable.  It just failed to dial down the power to match, and the result was the optimization tiers and endless 'Fighter SUX' threads on the WotC boards. 4e finally achieved balance by further removing limitations from casting, but bringing casting down, and non-casting up, to the same level of 'protagonist-apropriate' power. An elegant solution, rejected for being different.  As any improvement, sadly, must be.</blockquote>

Verification