I hate game balance!

[The Little Raven]

There's got to be a better way to address that than to make everyone the same, though.

Classes are definitely not the same, unless you're trying to tell me that fighters are great at ranged attacks, or area of effect spells, or that wizards are masters of melee weaponry and heavy armor.

 

[Rechan]

I think that is what I was getting at. If you let your spellcasters blow all their spells in one combat, and I don't mean the big one where it is absolutely needed, then it isn't the fault of the game design. Magi are supposed to have a level of intelligence, and they should know that it isn't in their best interest to shoot off all their magic at once, just in case you might need something later.

Actually no. It is in their best interest to shoot their load early and rest.

Because that's the best option.

Seriously, unless things are time sensitive, why would you not use all your spells every fight if you could?

 

[Remathilis]

I think that is what I was getting at. If you let your spellcasters blow all their spells in one combat, and I don't mean the big one where it is absolutely needed, then it isn't the fault of the game design. Magi are supposed to have a level of intelligence, and they should know that it isn't in their best interest to shoot off all their magic at once, just in case you might need something later.

That's what I meant in that it seemed that it was your playstyle that led to this, not the game design itself.

-wally

My wizard has an 18 intelligence. I'm not nearly as smart as him. I want to survive. To Win. If going to my big guns and retreating is the best method to survive and win, that THAT's the way to do it.

As someone eles in this thread said: "Life's not fair". Might as well exploit it.

 

[Psion]

There's got to be a better way to address that than to make everyone the same, though.

Indeed there is.

At least as far as I am concerned.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Ack! Dogpile!

And that is?

Heck if I know, man. I'm working on figuring that out, but my homebrew system is - at this point - worlds away from 3.5 or 4e, so any answer I come up with isn't going to translate well.

The same what?

Everybody just feels the same. Every power (for the most part) deals damage; most have a side-effect. Your turn is pretty much always going to be "use power, maybe move, maybe sustain something."

I haven't played much of 4e, so take my "everybody feels the same" with a grain of salt; just reading the books, that's the impression I get. I hear it plays better than it reads, and while I have my doubts, I'm willing to give it a shot.

I like mechanical differentiation. I like subsystems, and 4e didn't go down that road, so I'm a bit disappointed, so that particular bias of mine is probably contributing to my opinion that 4e characters feel rather similar.

 

[The Little Raven]

If you let your spellcasters blow all their spells in one combat, and I don't mean the big one where it is absolutely needed, then it isn't the fault of the game design.

You say "let" as if you have some kind of choice in the matter. Sometimes you need to win a fight so you don't die, and that requires your healer to spend all his spells healing, or requires your wizard to unload his glass cannon.

Magi are supposed to have a level of intelligence, and they should know that it isn't in their best interest to shoot off all their magic at once, just in case you might need something later.

And a smart player knows that you won't have a later if you save your spells and let the party die. Suggesting that you can easily opt not to use spells and have no negative impact on your party's success in encounters is giving the player's far more control of the plot and encounters than actually exists.

That's what I meant in that it seemed that it was your playstyle that led to this, not the game design itself.

Running out of spells entirely is what fuels the 15-minute adventuring day. However, my primary complaint (which you haven't addressed) isn't the 15-minute adventuring day, but rather the "wizard uber alles" design philosophy that finally got the axe in 4th Edition.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Classes are definitely not the same, unless you're trying to tell me that fighters are great at ranged attacks, or area of effect spells, or that wizards are masters of melee weaponry and heavy armor.

You're not looking at them at the same level I am.

The mechanics are all the same. It just seems dull.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

(regards the posts above)

Ah, the wizard.
She is the weakest character in the game at low levels, and the strongest character in the game at high levels (in OD&D, 1E, 2E, and 3.0E)

The wizard was never meant to be balanced. Gary Gygax was explicit on that. Not balanced.
Instead, that immense high level power was the payoff for surviving those low levels. (A kind of balance all in it's own ...)

(cold look)

The player of the fighter and others have no right to complain.
The fighter was a strong character at low levels. He could do all sorts of things, survive all sorts of things, when the wizard could not.
The fighter eschewed the immense power that a wizard obtains at high level IN RETURN for great power at the lower levels. He made that decision, and he has to LIVE with that decision. He wasn't willing to take the immense risk of being a low level wizard (with it's high mortality rate) and so he doesn't get the payoff.

If he wishes to complain about this, he had better complain to someone other than me.

-

So, someone played an elven fighter/wizard in the game, got all the benefits of low level AND got the benefits of the immense power of a high level wizard?
Didn't Gary Gygax put something called *level limits* on elves for just this occasion? Level 7 for fighter, and Level 9 for wizard.

Oh, the Level Limit got raised? And then eliminated? Because it was funner? And now you have a problem with the powerful fighter/archmage?

Sadder but wiser. If an elf can have everything, then ... he has everything. Who was it, who allowed him to have it all for free? (Hint: It wasn't the player.)

But what about 3E? Everyone can multiclass.
Multiclassing in 3E isn't like multiclassing in 1E and 2E. You are levels 5/5, but are considered 10th level for the purpose of gaining experience and what challenges to face. In 1E and 2E, you'd be considered 6th level. Big difference.

Gestalt? That's for special situations only. And if one character can be gestalt, all the characters can be gestalt. (And, all the monsters can be gestalt too. Funtime ...)

 

[GnomeWorks]

Indeed there is.

At least as far as I am concerned.

If you've got some good ideas, I'm all ears, man.

 

[The Little Raven]

Every power (for the most part) deals damage; most have a side-effect. Your turn is pretty much always going to be "use power, maybe move, maybe sustain something."

If that's the basis for saying they're the same, then a basic melee attack and Magic Missile are the same in 1e/2e/3e, since they both merely deal damage. The wizard and fighter's turns are identical, since they both would be saying "I perform <action; Magic Missile or melee attack> on <target X> and maybe move."

When you generalize things to that point, everything looks the same, because you're ignoring the fundamental details that make them different.