D&D 5E How much should 5e aim at balance?

[B.T.]

This entire golem argument is lol.

 

[The Choice]

This entire golem argument is lol.

It's also quite informative; some of the people who defend 3.X as a "totally not broken and unbalanced game" are actually not using the rules as written or intented.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's also quite informative; some of the people who defend 3.X as a "totally not broken and unbalanced game" are actually not using the rules as written or intented.

You realize that they aren't intended to be used as written, right?

And that the same argument could thus be made about any rpg (most definitely including 4e)?

 

[slobster]

You realize that they aren't intended to be used as written, right?

And that the same argument could thus be made about any rpg (most definitely including 4e)?

That's an interesting point of view. I'll admit that I don't run 3.x by RAW, but I do run and play 4E by RAW, Dresden Files by RAW, and L5R by RAW and haven't really experienced any problems. Moreover, having had the pleasure of talking to playtesters and (in one case) designers for L5R and Dresden RPG, I can tell you that they definitely intended their ruleset to be playable as written. They don't mind if you run the game with houserules, of course, but they did intend the fruit of their efforts to be playable without any houserules or overhaul.

 

[billd91]

It's also quite informative; some of the people who defend 3.X as a "totally not broken and unbalanced game" are actually not using the rules as written or intented.

Except that we have shown that those golem rules that you are implying aren't the rules as written or as intended really are the rules as written and intended... for 3.0 (which, last time I checked, was part of 3.x). The person arguing they were still the same for 3.5 was mistaken, but that doesn't change the fact that they were the RAW and RAI for part of 3.x.

 

[Hussar]

You realize that they aren't intended to be used as written, right?

And that the same argument could thus be made about any rpg (most definitely including 4e)?

That's an interesting POV.

If rules are written with the express intent that they won't be used as written, what's the point of using written rulesets in the first place? Why not go freeform and be done with it?

Defending mechanics based on the fact that you can change the mechanics is fine to be honest. We all change mechanics. What blows me away is that people apply that thinking to earlier editions but 4e must be run by RAW and only by RAW and nothing but RAW without a single moment of introspection. My http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/328517-changes-interpretation.html thread shows that nicely.

 

[Magil]

You realize that they aren't intended to be used as written, right?

And that the same argument could thus be made about any rpg (most definitely including 4e)?

I, erm... I don't follow this logic. I mean, obviously, WotC isn't stamping out houserules and probably doesn't expect you to use the whole system by RAW, or rather, care if you don't, but they do write rules for the purpose of being used.

Sure, maybe they don't expect you to use the whole system, but I'd say that every single rule they write was intended for use (even if not for everyone to use). Else, why write it?

 

[Ahnehnois]

If rules are written with the express intent that they won't be used as written, what's the point of using written rulesets in the first place? Why not go freeform and be done with it?

Because the word "rule" is really a misnomer. They're guidelines. They're a starting point. They're a paradigm you use to create a fantasy reality, not the parameters of a competition.

Defending mechanics based on the fact that you can change the mechanics is fine to be honest. We all change mechanics. What blows me away is that people apply that thinking to earlier editions but 4e must be run by RAW and only by RAW and nothing but RAW without a single moment of introspection.

I don't think anyone's saying that. My problem with 4e is not the presence of material I can't use (as 3e and 2e and various other games I like have plenty of that). It's the absence of anything I can use.

I would have to remove the standard modifier, the entire power system, the health and healing rules, the setting, the skill challenges, and virtually all of the races and classes, as well as rebuild all the monsters and replace all of that basic structure, just in order to run a basic introductory 4e session. That's not houseruling, that's me writing a new game. (Whereas to run a 3e game, I could go straight from the core books, maybe add some Unearthed Arcana stuff that's free online, and hit the road running). I don't mind building a new class for a player who wants a better warmage, but I need some kind of framework I can work within.

I look at 4e with exactly the same eye that I use to look at Trailblazer, Pathfinder, and any number of other d20 derivatives (as do most people, I suspect).

 

[Ahnehnois]

I, erm... I don't follow this logic. I mean, obviously, WotC isn't stamping out houserules and probably doesn't expect you to use the whole system by RAW, or rather, care if you don't, but they do write rules for the purpose of being used.

Sure, maybe they don't expect you to use the whole system, but I'd say that every single rule they write was intended for use (even if not for everyone to use). Else, why write it?

It's intended for use, but also intended for interpretation. In the unlikely event that a character overpowers the others consistently, the DM is given broad authority to fix that by any means necessary. If the game is not fun, everyone at the table is empowered to change things.

 

[Magil]

It's intended for use, but also intended for interpretation. In the unlikely event that a character overpowers the others consistently, the DM is given broad authority to fix that by any means necessary. If the game is not fun, everyone at the table is empowered to change things.

So they are meant to be used as written, unless they become a problem? Okay, that makes more sense than what you said at first.

I just don't agree with that kind of philosophy, at least not to such a big extent. It almost feels as if the designers would be saying, "we'll make something, throw it at the players to buy, and they can fix it if it's broken." I'd rather play a system that doesn't need as much fixing, it's a lot less work for me to start having fun!