I hate game balance!

[der_kluge]

4th edition's "Balance" doesn't bug me so much, but I think what the OP is driving at it's 4th edition's attempts at giving player's new toys to play with every level. Like, the game itself can't hold people's attention spans anymore, they've got to now have new shiny toys every level.

But what bugs me about 4th edition, primarily, is that I can't make a truly "worthless" character. You know, we've all had those - the bard/cloistered cleric who takes ranks in all kinds of skills and excels at nothing in particular. That kind of character is really hard to make in 4th edition. They're all souped-up superheros right from the start.

 

[The Little Raven]

Again, the OP's point--which is clear form his original post--is that everyone excelled in their own way.

And the point people made to him is that 4e does exactly that, by making the Fighter a melee force to be reckoned with, the Wizard a destroyer of armies on the battlefield with area spells, and the Ranger a brutal striker from long ranges (40 squares is further than spells reach). Everyone excels in their own way.

He is complaining that they "took away" exactly what they reinforced with the system: each class is distinct and competent at it's role, and other classes do not overshadow it.

 

[The Little Raven]

But what bugs me about 4th edition, primarily, is that I can't make a truly "worthless" character.

Yes, you can. You just have to do it intentionally, with that purpose in mind, rather than falling into "system mastery" traps like the Use Rope skill or the 3.X Toughness feat.

 

[mmu1]

Well, I agree with the OP, broadly speaking.

I'm also really sick of the "CODzilla" hyperbole, and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth of people who apparently got beaten up by Wizards in grade school and had their milk money stolen.

In all the time I've played D&D, I ran one long-term character that was a caster. I played lots of Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers and Rogues (or combinations thereof), though, and the only time I can think of that I ended up feeling my character was irrelevant was because of pretty specific campaign design issues, not Clerics and Wizards.

I've never played in games where the 15-minute adventuring day was the norm, where the fact spells are a limited resource didn't matter, or where you had unlimited amounts of time to buff your character, either.

Of course, I'm sure it's just a matter of time before someone tells me I'm wrong, because it's actually impossible to have a fun 3.5 game.

 

[Canaan]

Here here!

I love being the rogue and being overshadowed by the mage from level 5 on. Climb Walls? Nah, I can just fly up there. Oh, you need that lock opened? Knock. Going to scout on the ogres? I'll cast invisibility and silence to join you. Oh, archaic language? Comprehend Language here we come! All that, and I can STILL do more damage in one fireball than you can with a backstab without the needless hassle of flanking or getting surprise.

And oh, the fun we had when fighters had no skills beyond climb and jump. But he was the MASTER of melee combat, until the cleric cast divine power, righteous might, and greater magic weapon to dominate the foe. Then he'd heal himself and the fighter (who provided a wonderful distraction until the cleric was buffed) and it was off for our 8 hour nap (because the cleric was out of spells from buffing and the wizard blew his on being a rogue exploration and attack magic)

And how about that love for half-orcs? Or half-elves? Or bards? Or monks with flurry of misses? and didn't we LOVE the fact humans before 3e had the best racial trait ever: they could be 20th level paladins! Can elves be either 20th OR paladins? NO! But humans, they could be BOTH!

I guess that wasn't fair. My half-elf bard had a use too. He had max ranks in diplomacy, synergy bonuses, racial bonuses, feat bonuses, and other stacking +'s. So he did ALL the negotiating with NPCs while the rest of the players zoned out because they had 8-10 charisma's. My mighty +18 to diplomacy at 2nd level (+5 ranks, +3 cha, +2 half-elf, +2 negotiator, +6 synergy from bluff, know: nobility, and sense motive) made putting any ranks in it for anyone else pointless. (oh, he also had charm person in case he DID roll poorly...)

So viva la broken! Long live the CoDzilla! Bow to the majesty all of the all-encompassing Swiss-army wizard! Huzzah for cherry picking and bonus stacking! D&D wouldn't be D&D without them.

(Sorry, that much sarcasm made me throw up in my mouth a little)

Well, thanks for the apology, as I was about to smack you. As to your argument that the mage used to be able to overshadow all other characters, I agree that in 3.5 that was the case. I would also say that in 3.0 it was the priest that was the uber-class.

But 2d edition had it right. Yes, a mage became very powerful at upper levels, but his mighty magical power was for naught in a melee fight. And spells? Well, he never got them automatically and had to search and adventure to find even the least powerful of spells. The DM was able to control the power level of the wizard simply by restricting access to spells. And what about "spells per day?" I seem to recall that a wizard had very few spells each day in his arsenal. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, isn't this a "roleplaying" game? Why are we talking about "game balance" for such a creature?

 

[mmu1]

What?

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

No, he's just saying you're offensive. And you are.

 

[Canaan]

And the point people made to him is that 4e does exactly that, by making the Fighter a melee force to be reckoned with, the Wizard a destroyer of armies on the battlefield with area spells, and the Ranger a brutal striker from long ranges (40 squares is further than spells reach). Everyone excels in their own way.

He is complaining that they "took away" exactly what they reinforced with the system: each class is distinct and competent at it's role, and other classes do not overshadow it.

Eventually, people tried to make that point, yes. I agree with you on that. But I don't agree with the argument they make. What damage does fireball do again? a base 1d6? Destroyer of armies, indeed.

 

[buzz]

:takes a sip of his coffee:

But 2d edition had it right.

:spits coffee all over the place:

Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, isn't this a "roleplaying" game? Why are we talking about "game balance" for such a creature?

Seriously?

 

[Canaan]

The fact that other people are poorer than you and suffer for it makes you feel great?

Well, I'm disinclined to discuss anything with you, even gaming. Welcome to my ignore list.

That wasn't his point, Keth. He was bringing real life examples of the differences of people--in this case socioeconomic differences--to enforce his point about people being special in their own ways. How you read it the way you did, I do not know. But be at ease knowing that he did not intend to offend.

 

[TwoSix]

Don't have my PHB with me, but isn't the maximum range on a longbow 40 squares, i.e. 200feet, i.e. a little less than 70 yards? So y'know, maybe it's not all still the case

Or maybe I'm forgetting a rule that lets you fire further than that.

Fire 40 squares diagonally.