The Little Raven
First Post
mmu1 said:
I would assume you mean resistances, since DR doesn't affect spells.
I hate game balance!
- Thread starter LordDamax
- Start date
I would assume you mean resistances, since DR doesn't affect spells.
cangrejoide
First Post
The problem with the 3E Wizard:
(I saw this posted in another thread.)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5NTAAvJIGrs
(I saw this posted in another thread.)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5NTAAvJIGrs
The Little Raven
First Post
Rechan said:
Indeed. Behavior modification guidelines are not a substitute for good game design.
Byronic
First Post
I agree with the OP in theory, because it's correct, in theory.
And no, the OP had nothing to do with Wizards being super powerful. I have the same thoughts and I've never played a Wizard in my life (will change though).
However in practice I believe that 4.0, despite its many flaws (oh there are so many things I wish they kept in.. or went the whole 9 yards instead of quitting half way) CAN be adapted to make up for its flaws. The following is an example.
In practice I believe people will have their specialities.
The best at rituals (in general) will be the Wizard, why? Because he'll have the most rituals and most likely have the right abilities and skills to use the best of them (with some exceptions).
Everyone can heal themselves, and some (like the Warlord) can heal others. But NO ONE can heal better then a Cleric. Not only does the Cleric have healers lore but he's the best one for curing diseases and healing ailments. He has the Ritual feat and he can most likely cast it better then the Wizard.
Everyone can disarm traps simply by taking thievery, however, how many party members are willing to burn a feat to get it? The best person of the whole party at disarming traps will most likely be someone who has thievery and has invested a lot in dexterity.
In practice people specialise or they fail a lot of skill challenges.
Even in combat different classes will be much better suited at certain goals. In theory it all sucks, in practice it can work out quite fine.
And no, the OP had nothing to do with Wizards being super powerful. I have the same thoughts and I've never played a Wizard in my life (will change though).
However in practice I believe that 4.0, despite its many flaws (oh there are so many things I wish they kept in.. or went the whole 9 yards instead of quitting half way) CAN be adapted to make up for its flaws. The following is an example.
In practice I believe people will have their specialities.
The best at rituals (in general) will be the Wizard, why? Because he'll have the most rituals and most likely have the right abilities and skills to use the best of them (with some exceptions).
Everyone can heal themselves, and some (like the Warlord) can heal others. But NO ONE can heal better then a Cleric. Not only does the Cleric have healers lore but he's the best one for curing diseases and healing ailments. He has the Ritual feat and he can most likely cast it better then the Wizard.
Everyone can disarm traps simply by taking thievery, however, how many party members are willing to burn a feat to get it? The best person of the whole party at disarming traps will most likely be someone who has thievery and has invested a lot in dexterity.
In practice people specialise or they fail a lot of skill challenges.
Even in combat different classes will be much better suited at certain goals. In theory it all sucks, in practice it can work out quite fine.
Last edited:
Rechan said:
Because the "lopsidedly balanced" system has certain positive features that actually appeal to certain people? Like me, even though, as I said, I rarely play casters.
Also, because "don't play with them" is not the only countermeasure to flaws in the system. (it's the only countermeasure to playing with asshats)
The Little Raven
First Post
Psion said:
When was the ranger a better archer than the fighter?
When did bows have a longer range than most combat spells?
Then go and play the lopsided system, and stop complaining about one that is for people who like a level playing field at all levels?mmu1 said:
Then apparently you and I have a different definition of what an asshat is.
I don't see someone who takes a cleric or wizard and uses the spells to be effective an asshat. A melee-based cleric who uses divine power and all those spells isn't looking at the fighter going "HA HA I'M BETTER THAN YOU"; he just wants to play the game and he's no different than the fighter picking up Imp Crit and vorpal weapons.
The problem comes with the fact that the some classes have more options. That the melee-focused cleric can do his thing in addition to the normal cleric-healbot/undead nuke.
Here's a great example: The Druid with the feat "Nature Spell". Now, the Druid can fight like a fighter and gets to use all his spells in his combat form. Is the player being an asshat? No, because any druid in their right mind would take that feat because it's simply the best feat for a druid. But it still allows him to do most of what the fighter can do AND cast all his spells!
At higher levels, you're stupid not to abuse the system. Seriously, who wouldn't use Fly or Improved Invisibility? Who wouldn't use Stoneskin? Who wouldn't use save or dies? It's too good not to use your spells while you're a melee monster. They're effective.
The problem is that effectiveness = kills fun or overshadows other people.
Last edited:
Remathilis
Legend
Psion said:
Hey Psion, I think you got me mixed up with Doug McCrae in this post...
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4333047&postcount=78
Honest mistake (I hope)
Ultimately I think this is the crux of the thread:
It's not an issue of "Game balance vs. not game balance". It's an issue of "Good balance vs. bad balance".
Bad balance: The afore-mentioned 4 man group, all with specialized skills, all with no skill overlap, all getting an hour to do their thing and three hours to sit on their ass. Yes, everyone gets 1 hour, everyone has their specialty, that is balanced, but it's not fun.
Another example is the various "situational benefits" of 3e. Rogues get sneak attack... unless they're fighting oozes/undead/constructs/elementals. Rangers get their benefits... when they're fighting their favored enemy. Rogues are great... out of combat, fighters are... useless outside of it.
4e is balanced so all classes, all levels are equal to one another.
Now if you think that's good or bad balance is up to you. I do not think that's a bad design.
It's not an issue of "Game balance vs. not game balance". It's an issue of "Good balance vs. bad balance".
Bad balance: The afore-mentioned 4 man group, all with specialized skills, all with no skill overlap, all getting an hour to do their thing and three hours to sit on their ass. Yes, everyone gets 1 hour, everyone has their specialty, that is balanced, but it's not fun.
Another example is the various "situational benefits" of 3e. Rogues get sneak attack... unless they're fighting oozes/undead/constructs/elementals. Rangers get their benefits... when they're fighting their favored enemy. Rogues are great... out of combat, fighters are... useless outside of it.
4e is balanced so all classes, all levels are equal to one another.
Now if you think that's good or bad balance is up to you. I do not think that's a bad design.
Similar Threads
