I hate game balance!

[Edena_of_Neith]

Honestly, you really, really, really need to play some 4e, and for more than just one or two sessions. The classes play quite differently, and more and more once you get to the higher levels.

(snip)

Play D&D 4E. You really need to see it in play for a few sessions until you understand what its strengths are, and what its weaknesses are.

Cheers!

Will do, Merric.

I'm definitely not throwing flames at 4E.
Merely reminiscing, really. Honoring older concepts that I liked, in older versions of D&D.

 

[Psion]

Anything that touchy is way too easy to screw up. I've got no interest in dealing with a system in which a player goes from worst to best, no matter how big the timeframe is. It's just not worth it.

You go from arguing with something I said to something I didn't say between your first and second sentence. I never approved a "player going from worst to best"; that's Edena.

 

[GnomeWorks]

You go from arguing with something I said to something I didn't say between your first and second sentence. I never approved a "player going from worst to best"; that's Edena.

Hmm... I think I just misinterpreted what you said, then. The "shifting the means of balance over levels" bit got me thinking that you were saying the same kind of thing as Edena.

Mind clarifying what you meant?

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

This is an unfair argument. I've got little interest in speaking ill of the dead, and we're going to wind up going there, if this part of this conversation continues much further.



No, Edena. Seriously. This is Bad Design.

Say you start a game at 1st, and it ends at 3rd. Oh, sorry, M-U, you just got screwed for nothin'.

Say you start a game at 20th. Oh, hey, M-U, you get phenomenal cosmic powers, at absolutely no cost! Aren't you cool!

I don't know how you cannot see that that can cause issues. Balancing a class "over level progression" is just a really, really, really bad idea. I don't care who's doing it, or what the philosophy behind it is. It just plain out sucks.

Hey there, GnomeWorks. Long time no see!

You are quite right. I have said, and will say again, that the game doesn't work by itself. The DM and players must work to make it work.
And hey, if that means modifying the wizard conception because they don't like it, that is what it means.

Me? I think the wizard is fine as she is. But that's just me.

The thread is about balance, and the wizard was the most unbalanced, as it were, of the old classes. I happen to dislike balance in general, and to like the old wizard class. But again, that's just me.

Each to their own.

 

[Remathilis]

I was just scanning your post, fuzzlewump, and this line caught my attention.

This is the problem. It's not that each class is of equal power - that's something I'm not too sure of, in general, but it sounds like enough of a good idea that I'm willing to run with it until I can think of a good reason that it's not a good idea.

It's that the class abilities seem to be rather similar in nature. Again, I haven't played it extensively, so maybe that's totally wrong, and they just look that way on paper (I'd blame the formatting); but just looking at them, and having toyed with them a bit, none of the classes really stands out from each other. They do, a bit, but not really significantly.

I reserve the right to see what it feels like over a few levels (not merely a demo game) but I can see some of this sentiment and agree with it: there is a bit of "power overlap" especially in the martial classes. I still maintain if that is the cost of a game that feels good over multiple levels and allows my rogue to shine equally (but not at the same things) as the wizards or clerics, or fighters, I'm a happy clam.

 

[Barastrondo]

I was subjected to a 'proper' DM demanding we play 1st level characters in I6 Ravenloft, and said 'properness' led to a very unfun adventure and a TPK (Ravenloft was meant for levels 6 and up: I do not know what the DM was thinking.)
So yeah, you are right. A 'proper' DM doing things 'properly' can lead to absurd situations.
I do not advocate that there is one, 'proper' way to play D&D.

Right. Now, consider if you had been allowed pregenerated characters of a reasonable level 8 or so. If anybody were playing a wizard, he would not have had to endure levels 1-7. Therefore, he suffered no real tradeoff for the powers of level 8+. If you played that game with the requisite characters without spending a year building a party up to that, the "characters are unequal at every level but balanced over time" approach has failed you.

Is the answer not to play fun and exciting adventures for higher-level characters if you haven't "earned" the right? I say hell no. Ravenloft is a classic, and not letting people experience it because they haven't slogged through the prerequisite levels is being miserly. People should have the opportunity to play it.

I therefore think it's good design to have characters balanced with one another at all levels, so that everyone is having fun at 1st level, everyone is having fun with the pickup Ravenloft module at 8th level, and everyone is having fun at 20th level. I think it's too early to say just how successful 4e is at that, but at the moment I'd say it's very admirable that they even looked at that problem and tried to address it.

You are a Game Designer for White Wolf? Cheers to you, sir.

(tips imaginary hat)

 

[GnomeWorks]

Hey there, GnomeWorks. Long time no see!

Hey, yeah, it's been awhile.

The thread is about balance, and the wizard was the most unbalanced, as it were, of the old classes. I happen to dislike balance in general, and to like the old wizard class. But again, that's just me.

There can be such a thing as too much balance, and I think that 4e has erred perhaps a touch too much on that side.

 

[Psion]

Hmm... I think I just misinterpreted what you said, then. The "shifting the means of balance over levels" bit got me thinking that you were saying the same kind of thing as Edena.

Mind clarifying what you meant?

I didn't say shifting balance. I said shifting means of balance. In 3e, I see characters as more equivalent at lower levels, and there is less reliance on special immunities and other countermeasures in creatures they will face.

At higher levels, the sorts of resources different classes have differ, and defenses and other strategies become more important in ensuring that all PCs have means to contribute to the progress of the game.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

You go from arguing with something I said to something I didn't say between your first and second sentence. I never approved a "player going from worst to best"; that's Edena.

(chuckles)

Yeah, that's me. The wizard. Worst to best.

Yet you know what? I happen to believe that this is the core spirit of D&D, period. Worst to best. From rags to riches. From ashes to glory. From nothing to greatness.
It doesn't take a wizard for that. That applies to all the classes. It's just that the wizard so epitomized this spirit, that she caught my attention.

(wry look)

It's sort of a moot point. Nobody ever played a single class wizard. Or, practically ever. Not in the games I was in.
So there were no single classes wizards around me, in the group, to obtain the massive rewards of high level.

There were some exceptions, all of them extremely unfortunate because they circumvented the spirit of the rules.

The most infamous exception was the elven fighter/wizard.

Had they not allowed this class, I think the wizard would have been much rarer and much more appreciated today.

EDIT: (Eyestrain here. Have to go offline. Not dissing anyone here, and nice to meet a White Wolf Designer! Nice to see you again, Gnomeworks! When I come back, I'll try to answer posts.)

 

[GnomeWorks]

I didn't say shifting balance. I said shifting means of balance. In 3e, I see characters as more equivalent at lower levels, and there is less reliance on special immunities and other countermeasures in creatures they will face.

At higher levels, the sorts of resources different classes have differ, and defenses and other strategies become more important in ensuring that all PCs have means to contribute to the progress of the game.

Oh! Okay. I see now. Sorry, I've been having a hard time parsing things all day.

That... is an interesting observation. I think that the argument to that would be that the casters were the primary source of dealing with those new things that cropped up at higher levels, which only contributes more to casters overshadowing the rest of the group.