I hate game balance!

[GnomeWorks]

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)

Instead, that immense high level power was the payoff for surviving those low levels. (A kind of balance all in it's own ...)

No.

That kind of balance is stupid. Always has been, always will be.

 

[Rechan]

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."

This was different in 3e how?

3e: "I move, I take a standard action to attack (attack being cast a spell or use a weapon)." Combat spells did damage, non combat (read: Utility or ritual spells) spells were used out of combat, or before combat to buff.

You're right, there's no subsystems. All classes follow the same general rules. But they are not mechanically the same, they can do different things. Rogues are far, far more mobile than Fighters or Paladins, and do more damage than wizards. Warlords move people around or grant them extra attacks, and can heal and attack in the same round. Wizards attack a lot of people in an area, and are the king of status effects.

I don't understand how that isn't different. If it's merely a matter that "Well, there's no complexity and subsystems", well I don't know what to tell you. I personally feel that's a boon because now you don't have people using three different subsystems in the same party, and the DM doesn't have to juggle three mini-rulesets.

You want complexity? Get on the battlemap and apply tactics. What works with those orcs isn't going to work with those kobolds, who can make 5' steps twice, which won't work against the next group of monsters.

 

[GnomeWorks]

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."

Resources!

Magic missile is a resource. Use it, it's gone. You can swing your swordarm all day long.

That is what made them different, in past editions. But in 4e? You, sir, are totally correct - there is no difference between the two.

 

[The Little Raven]

The wizard was never meant to be balanced. Gary Gygax was explicit on that. Not balanced.

And as I've said, I think Gygax was a horrible game designer, so saying he intentionally put bad design in his game doesn't do anything for me.

Instead, that immense high level power was the payoff for surviving those low levels. (A kind of balance all in it's own ...)

Ahh, the "do stuff now which is balanced by a future that may never occur" design philosophy which is fully dependent on the type of long-term campaigns which the majority of D&D players don't play.

The player of the fighter and others have no right to complain.

Anybody playing a poorly designed class has a right to complain.

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

You like bad game design. That's cool.

However (and here's the surprise), a lot of other people don't. We like our game designers to actually put work into the design, rather than tell us we need to figure it out for ourselves.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

No.

That kind of balance is stupid. Always has been, always will be.

Gary Gygax made it that way, and that's how it has been, in OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3.0E, and even in 3.5E.

Now, in 4E, it is not that way, so you may have found a D&D that is more to your liking.

 

[The Little Raven]

That kind of balance is stupid. Always has been, always will be.

Well, there are some things about which we can agree 100%. Good show, old man.

 

[Rechan]

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

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

That's like saying "You're not looking at languages at the same level I am; you stand five feet from the book, and they all look alike!"

 

[apoptosis]

And that is?

Really depends on what the game is trying to do.

If you want all players to have significant actions every round of and encounter and all actions are of comparable scope with identical number of actions available

Then the 4E design is probably the best design for this (and this is why people consider the classes abilities very similar).

They are different in that some of the fiddly bits are different which is either significant or not based on your focus and perspective. I dont find them highly different but i am not looking for an encounter-based game.

If you are looking for an encounter-based game then the design is very good and you can see how the differences play out.

In my other post I mentioned several different ways of handling this. Of course they all have their weaknesses.

1. limited uses based on slots or ability drain (really limited not 3.5 limited; say 5-10 spells total a day) - problem is the casters will not do magic stuff every round and will be a bit all or nothing

2. dangerous magic or costly magic (say you get -1 to your next roll that is cumulative for the next week or somethign..just making stuff up) - many players prefer magic as a tool and not dangerous

3. unpredicatable magic (might work might not) - see #2

4. Long regeneration time - might take week or even month to get magic back to full - same issues as #1 and if a player blows their entire wad and cant do magic for the next week/month they might not like that

5. non-magic characters have access to more narrative powers like action points or drama points - if you are trying to balance by characters it wont go over well and some people hate narrativist mechanics.

I think there are many ways to balance things. 4E is one of my least favorite ways of doing this (based on the style i play and how I want magic to feel in a game) but at the same time for the style they are going for it was probably the best way to do it.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I see. Players are stupid for playing the kind of character they WANT to play, rather than focusing ahead in the long term.

"I know you wanted to play a dashing scoundrel with a quick wit and quicker blade, or a powerful muscular barbarian with strong arms who can cleave skulls, but we're 12th level now and you made a bad choice months/years ago. You're no longer useful. Tough luck. Try again next campaign."

If that's your idea of game balance, I welcome our new 4e overlords. Thank you for making me NOT waste my time.

 

[Barastrondo]

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 ...)

This breaks down immediately if you ever start a game at higher levels, or if you let someone roll up a character of a different class to replace a fallen hero at something other than 1st level. And again, saying "well, 'proper' DMs make sure everyone always starts at 1st level" does not excuse the system: it just paints over another flaw and mandates just one more "proper" play style in order to compensate.

Having spent many a year in the game design business, I can't in good faith support the idea that there are no such thing as weaknesses in any given system. There always are, and it's not heresy for a designer to try addressing them — it's his job. A game designer who stops asking "Is there a way that this could work better?" about a game they work on is not a game designer any more. They're just creating by rote.