I hate game balance!

[Canaan]

:takes a sip of his coffee:


:spits coffee all over the place:


Seriously?

lol! yes, seriously. I'm not saying that 2ed didn't have its flaws. it clearly did. But these were not among them in my opinion.

 

[GSHamster]

Balanced does not mean identical.

In videogames, Starcraft is often held up as having the finest balance of any RTS. Yet it is composed of 3 different factions, which are very different from each other.

 

[Rechan]

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.

Armies = minions.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I still don't understand: if you don't have balance among the characters then how do you ensure that everyone is useful?

 

[Rechan]

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

Because it's a roleplaying "game", and "games" require "rules" that, in general, should be "balanced".

Otherwise it's just sitting around a table, telling stories and acting. No mechanics required there.

Ultimately, a roleplaying game is cops and robbers that lets you avoid the "Hey I shot you" "No you didn't" by requiring some sort of conflict-resolution mechanic. That mechanic can be as simple as rock/paper/scissor, but it's still a device that answers the question "Did that happen or not?"

 

[rkwoodard]

minions

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.

Assuming that footsoldiers are minions. Yes, an area effect base 1d6 is a destroyer of armies.

RK


edited Ninja'ed by 5 minutes

 

[AllisterH]

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?

Wow, I must applaud you for this.

You're one of the few people I've seen *CORRECTLY* identify why the 3.x spellcasters made out like bandits.

1e/2e had all the same spells that 3E did, but spellcasters never were as game-breaking powerful as before.

You forgot three other things.

1. Magic item creation was HARD. Even making a simply scroll was something of an adventure (anyone remember that excerpt about how to create a philter of love from PO:S&M)? When 3E opened the doors on magic item creation, it made an absolute hash of the limited spell slot idea for spellcasters.

2. The treasure table in 1e/2e were slanted towards magic weapons and armour. Compare the equivalent in 3.x which were scrolls and potions and you can see where the wizard gets stronger.

3. THe save system. Even if a spellcaster could get through the SR of a creature, the saves on most creatures meant Save or Die was sb-optimal. Better to depend on good ole fireball. Contrast with 3E.

Yet people were surprised that spellcasters could trump everyone so easily in 3.x? Knock makes sense in 1E/2e since the opportunity cost in using it was ridiculously high whereas that self same spell becomes "too-good" in 3.x

Like I've said before, Mialee may be the UGLIEST elf ever, but she has to be the best damn charmer ever given all the love that WOTC gave to wizards.

This is the reason why I think the "4E" blaster mage is a MUCH closer match to the 1e/2e wizard than the 3E wizard is even though the 3E wizard uses the same mechanics.

The ritual system makes "non-combat" magic more like how it was treated back in 1e/2e. Not something that a wizard breaks out wily-nily.

 

[buzz]

The conundrum in all this is that "balance" is often a nebulous term w/r/t RPGs.

For me, in terms of RPGs, "balance" is about fun being as equally distributed as possible amongst all the players. I.e., if any one option is too effective, you're removing fun from any player who doesn't take advantage of that option.

(This is one of the main things I am not going to miss about 3e.)

Ergo, I have a hard time getting behind any argument that prioritizes verisimilitude or setting fidelity over fun (as exemplified by the Heinsoo quote in my .sig). The whole point of play, IMO, is getting together with people in order to create fun for each other. If Larry's 18th-level wizard can consistently contribute more meaningfully to the fun than my 18th-level rogue, that makes my participation pretty meaningless. No amount of "But it makes sense!" arguments are going to make me any more inclined to keep playing that rogue, much less keep playing that particular game with those people.

The case would be exactly the same in a Narrativist, GM-less, shared-narration RPG (i.e., the polar opposite of D&D). If there's an option that consistently allows Larry to shut down my ability to add narration, I am not going to be inclined to keep playing.

Thus, "balance" is more important than anything else. "But it's a roleplaying game" is not an excuse. It's the worst possible excuse, honestly.

 

[The Little Raven]

Eventually, people tried to make that point, yes.

If by "eventually," you mean "the second response to the OP," then yes, they eventually did.

What damage does fireball do again? a base 1d6? Destroyer of armies, indeed.

Y'know, if you're going to try to engage in discussion about something, it helps to actually have some knowledge of the subject at hand.

Fireball (the 5th-level spell) deals 3d6 + Int damage to creatures in a Burst 2. That's 3d6 + Int damage to up to 25 creatures. If we're talking about armies (which are primarily comprised of minions), that's 25 dead soldiers in a single blast from a 5th-level spell.

Hell, one Flaming Sphere rolling around through an army can wreak some havoc, and that's only a level 1 spell.

 

[CountPopeula]

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).

And yet, I too have yet to see someone complain that they dislike the boost in power and ability to the fighter. Well, i take that back, I've seen complaints that it's "too complicated" for new gamers, and that fighter should be dull and boring and have no options, because that's what's going to hook new gamers.

But I haven't heard anyone who likes fighters and wants to play a fighter complain that they'd rather just have the basic attack and let the wizard and cleric have all the abilities.