I hate game balance!

[WayneLigon]

I dunno. I've always been a fan of defined class roles. I've also been a fan of being able to blur and bend those roles if need be.

You like blurring the lines, or you want niche protection. Which is it, because you can't have both.

And above all else, I've been a fan of a character being able to do somethign NO ONE else can.

As has been pointed out to you, that doesn't exist in D&D. After a certain level in 1/2/3E, the mage or cleric can do everything the other classes can do, plus their own stuff, especially if you don't put some limits on downtime (which governs making scrolls and potions) or the '15-minute adventuring day' (which lets them start every series of encounters with their full complement of spells). The higher level you go, the less niche protection there is especially when secondary books keep providing the spellcasters with cool toys while the others, sometimes, get an equipment upgrade or a superior feat.

If that means the mage is all-powerful at 18th level, then so be it.

That's a lot of fun if you're the mage. If you're anyone but the mage, it gets damned boring to sit there while he solves all the problems.

I've left games where, basically, we all sat around and watched one character do everyones job for them. In a balanced game, we all have a role to play and play it well.

I'm a network admin and I make decent money. I'm not a millionaire, and I wish I were. I'm sure the poor schlub mopping the floor at the hoagie shack near me wishes he made my kind of money. We're not all equal. I cannot drive a race car, play a guitar, or do quantum physics. Maybe you cannot reprogram a router like I can.

Certainly this is the case in the real world. It's always better to be a member of the aristocracy, regardless of time period.

If we really wanted a game that reflected this aspect of it, we'd be back playing a game where everything was more or less randomized, including our level. There have been games like that and they're not around anymore because most people won't put up with that crap.

(Rolemaster is a good example of this; if you roll super-well in three or four primary attributes you will forever-more dominate that game, to the point that no matter what items or classes anyone else chooses, they'll quickly realize that in actuality they're just along for the ride, so to speak).

 

[cangrejoide]

So, I bought the 4E books. I read them. I read a lot of posts here on enworld, reading about others opinions and helping to solidify my own.

And heres the deal.

I HATE GAME BALANCE!

I have always abhorred game balance. It made no sense. I loved the fact a fighter could kick the snot out of a mage at melee, and a mage could destroy a fighter with a spell, and a ranger could kill both of them from 100 yards away.

And the reason I hate 4E is game balance. It is SO balanced, they spent so much time ensuring that everything is equal, no one class has any leg up on any other class, or even a perceived leg up, so that everyone would be equal.

Know what happens when EVERYONE is special? Yeah, you got it.

I have a 4 year old who will soon be wanting to play soccer or little leauge, and it sickens me that theres not a single league around here for him to play in where at the end of the season EVERYONE gets a trophy. You're all winners! No one is a loser! YOU are special!

Oh, wait, I am digressing, we're talking about a game...

When everyone's special, what makes you so damn special? Everyone wants to feel needed. Everyone wants to be special. How awesome is it for the rogue to be able to disarm the trap that's a party roadblock? How awesome is it to be the fighter and you're the only one that can hit the dragon? What about the mage who's capable of teleporting the party across the chasm? The priest who can raise the dead?

Now, in 4E, you're all special! Everyone can cast spells, um, rituals! Everyone gets a XXX power at YYY level! And they all pretty much do the same thing... damage this guy and get this effect! Rangers dont track anymore, mages cannot phantasmal killer anything anymore, and bards, well, bards ARENT anymore

I dunno. I've always been a fan of defined class roles. I've also been a fan of being able to blur and bend those roles if need be. And above all else, I've been a fan of a character being able to do somethign NO ONE else can. If that means the mage is all-powerful at 18th level, then so be it.

I'm a network admin and I make decent money. I'm not a millionaire, and I wish I were. I'm sure the poor schlub mopping the floor at the hoagie shack near me wishes he made my kind of money. We're not all equal. I cannot drive a race car, play a guitar, or do quantum physics. Maybe you cannot reprogram a router like I can.

Its that DIFFERENCE in things that make it great.

Something about how all the classes feel so damn similar to me... it irks me. Everyone is special. Everyone can kick ass.

And mechanically, what you're capable of accomplishing in the game, is pretty much the same as what I can.

I now invite the 4E lovers here to tell me that my opinion is wrong. Show me why game balance is necessary, because, as you know better than I do, my opinion is not correct!

If you really feel that bad about 4E, just ask for a refund or do the ebay mambo.

 

[wingsandsword]

I have noticed a number of arguments about game balance (esp regarding 4e) come down to "wizards got nerfed because they cannot effectively break the game anymore" (followed closely behind is "clerics are no longer worth playing because they don't break the game AND fight well while doing it")

Nice strawman there.

Maybe it's that many people don't mind that some classes are more powerful than others, especially at high levels? Some people don't want flavor and style sacrificed for pure mathematical equality between classes.

High level wizards should be nigh-godlike terrors on the battlefield who can devastate armies in seconds and rewrite reality in seconds out-of-combat, their only real weakness is physical frailty that means that unless they have prep magic up, a fighter of far lower level can come and whack them down quickly, but if they are prepared even a far higher level fighter has no chance against him. That 4e has nerfed the wizard down to a pigeonholed predetermined combat niche and handed all the reality-rewriting into rituals anybody can do with just a feat (and that means less in 4e than 3e with getting more feats and feats being weaker).

 

[apoptosis]

I think a better approach would be how do you allow potentially extreme differences in scope of a characters ability to affect the world and allow all the PLAYERS to enjoy the game and have spotlight time.

Balance in D&D has always been about magic. How do you deal with the fact that the idea of magic and sorcery has a certain meaning to many people that it can do stuff that mundane means cannot equal.

How do you balance a character that can do that with other characters.

1. Limit use of magic (older versions)
2. Make magic and 'mundane' actions equivalent (4E) (or allow anyone access to magic..rituals)

The problem with older versions for some groups (strangely not mine) was that the limit to use had to be pretty extreme to balance the acutal scope and versatility. When the upped the uses per day in 3E it got more difficult. They tried to harness it by limiting straight hp damage of magic but they didnt really help.

Many people (or some peoples whatever) have issues that it takes away their version of the wizard trope and that classes all seem similar.

There were other ways that balance could have been obtained.

1. make magic dangerous to use or costly
2. make magic time consuming
3. limit number of uses more dramatically (say only can cast a handful of spells per day even at high levels either by slots or by ability drain etc.)
4. make magic unreliable
5. make magic take a long time to regenerate (takes a week or month to get all your power back)
5. give mundane characters access to some narrative power like action points or drama points etc.

Probably many more ways of doing it. 4E took one tact, that for me was one of the less ideal ways of doing for a general fantasy RPG but i think was a very good way of doing it for the focus and style of play that 4E is trying to provide.

 

[Canaan]

This is still the case.

That's... about all the refutation your post requires.

But I can go beyond that. You seem to view the above quote as an example of a system which hasn't got balance. Actually, its an example of a system which DOES have balance. Each character has areas in which they excel, and areas in which they fall behind. Fortunately, its even the method of balance chosen by 4th edition! How convenient for you! Now you can embrace the game and be happy, instead of repeating lines from The Incredibles which, in the movie, made even less sense than your use of them did.

I dare say, sir, that you are offensive.

 

[Canaan]

In other words, you . . . love . . . game balance?

This is an example of horrible, results-driven logic.

 

[Jack99]

I agree there is a point where game balance becomes stifling. The object is to operate in that middle ground where things aren't completely unbalanced yet the balance isn't so strict it reduces the options.

With 4e it feels like they turned game balance into a straight-jacket and got rid of many of my favorite character concepts in the name of game balance my precious.

Wild guess. You are a player more often than a DM?

 

[Cadfan]

I dare say, sir, that you are offensive.

What?

I feel like something very witty has been said, and I didn't understand it.

 

[The Little Raven]

High level wizards should be nigh-godlike

Suggesting that one character type should be more powerful than all other character types at the same level is just poor game design. If level isn't an accurate indicator of power level comparison between two characters, then it is a worthless concept.

 

[Canaan]

I am confused by your post. AFAIK, your examples here *are* about game balance! You posit the classic rock/paper/scissors scenerio, where under the right conditions a certain class excels, so all are balanced as a whole.

Personally, I think this is a good thing, 4e or other game. Otherwise, players would all gravitate towards the most powerful option.

Again, the OP's point--which is clear form his original post--is that everyone excelled in their own way. This may be a poor example of what he is calling the "lack of game balance" (that he likes), but it is not his "point."