I hate game balance!

[LordDamax]

Ok, I've been away all day since my OP.

First off, thank you all for reinforcing my last paragraph og the OP so strongly and effectively. I KNEW my opinion must be wrong, and I thank you for showing me the error of my ways. The acerbic and sarcastic replies really drove the point home how I'm an idiot for feeling the way I do. Thank you.

I think I misspoke a bit in my OP however. The fighter beating the snot out of the mage etc etc was a poor example - thats not an example of how I hate game balance run amok, its an example of the DIFFERENCE in characters. In 4E everyone's the same darn thing. They all have 4 at-will powers to choose from that deal damage. They all get the same types of powers at the same levels, and they are all equally powerful. Hell, wizards being tired of fighters who got to use fancy +4 longswords now get +4 "orbs" to increase the hitroll and damage of their spells.

Really?

Everyone is the samn darn thing. A fighter uses a sword, a rogue uses a light blade, a wizard uses a spell, and a ranger uses a bow. But they all do damage in the same way. Sure, the wizard uses a "magic missile" while a ranger uses a "longbow" but its the same damn thing. Rogues get a sneak attack or whatever its called, and a ranger gets a hunters quarry whatnot.

In the attempt to balance, they made everyone the same. Everyone's special!

Yeah, I'm sorry, but an 18th level wizard should be able to destroy an army, with a few 20th level fighters in said army. HES A FREAKING WIZARD! I'm sorry a wizard came by and peed in your sandbox when you were a fledgeling fighter, but its a FREAKING WIZARD! To say a fighter has no advantage over a wizard and a wizard has none over a fighter is game balance, and its stupid. I'm sorry wizard, you can no longer fly and hurl hellfire, because thats NOT FAIR to the guy with the sword!

And since it happens in every game everywhere, everyone becomes wizards. Because to read it here, thats what ALWAYS happens.

So then, everyone's a wizard? Good. You get to fight armies of golems on your way to the plane of anti-magic. Theres an effective freaking party. Have fun with that.

Oh, wait, personal responsibility? No, we cant have that!

If your crappy DM lets you rest every 15 minutes to get your spells back, you should roll a wizard, and play an all wizard group. You hate that horrible idea? GET A BETTER DM! ANy game system can be abused and ruined by a crappy DM. It's this diapering that 4E does that pisses me off. You are obviously stupid, and a twink, and a munchkin, and your spineless mushbrain DM allows it to happen, so we'll make a game system that prevents that with the rules. Lets make everyone special!

Know how mages arent god-like beings that make every other class worthless in MY game? I'm not a crappy DM! I dont give out the game breaking spells like candy! When they HAVE the spells, they dont want to memorie crap like knock and all the other rogue abusing spells because they are busy using the slots for spells THEY need. Thats intelligent playing, lets give up some artillery so that I can waste a slot on a spell that completely duplicates this here rogue's ability, just so I can steal his spotlight, then be useless in the coming fight.

If you play with that asshat, and continue to do so, and enjoy it, dont petition WotC to change MY game to put a diaper on your moron friend.

Yes, a wizard CAN break things if the player is a jackass, the DM is an idiot, and you're too stupid or desperate to play with them.

In my games, I'm chock full of fighters, barbarians, rogues and clerics, and rarely does anyone want to play the mage, because they routinely get their asses kicked by the archers and mages on the bad guys side who say "Holy crap, a mage, kill it, it's powerful!"

Of course, that makes me a crappy GM for picking on the mage, right?

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

So, you answer game design questions with "Make the DM fix it, because we designers can't be bothered to."

You can't design a D&D game that auto-happys everyone who plays it with no effort on anyone's part.
D&D doesn't work like that. D&D is dependent on interpersonal communication, interaction, group work. D&D is not a video game, nor is it a take-it-as-is-or-leave-it situation like a formal chess tournament.

D&D works because the DM and the players work to make it work.
If the DM and players refuse to work to make it work, it will *not* work. And that reality is not something that can be 'ruled' away, 'balanced' away, or otherwise 'fixed.'

There are no easy answers. And we D&Ders know, from painful and bitter experience, that there are no easy answers in D&D.

So yeah, the DM is stuck with a heavy burden. 'Fixing' the game with a new edition doesn't fix his or her problem at all.
Is this fair to the DM? No.
In the 1E DMG, you will see the writing: 'welcome to the ranks of the overworked and underappreciated.' Those words of wisdom applied then, apply now, and will always apply.

DMing was, is, and will always be hard, challenging, too much work, and underappreciated. But I do not think people will stop DMing because of this. People who DM, find ways to share in the fun despite these realities.

 

[wally]

Don't forget scrolls and wands.

A wand of Invisibility or Knock is a great investment. A scroll of Silence and Invisibility Sphere beats the pants off "The rogue infiltrating the place". In later levels, Scry + Teleport beats infiltration.

Hell, I never understood why people didn't resort to just an Open/Close cantrip on doors that you think are trapped, instead of the rogue risking his ass.

The open close idea is not a bad one, and I can see it being used, if someone would think of it. Most spellcasters didn't take it for the daily though.

If you are spending money on buying or building wands of invisibility or knock, that is your choice, but you aren't spending it on other things. If I was a rogue in a game where the mage was specifically trying to do these things, I would probably build up ranks in pick pocket and use magic device and take all his stuff and use it myself.

It would still be the rogue shining then.

-wally

 

[Barastrondo]

OFirst off, thank you all for reinforcing my last paragraph og the OP so strongly and effectively. I KNEW my opinion must be wrong, and I thank you for showing me the error of my ways. The acerbic and sarcastic replies really drove the point home how I'm an idiot for feeling the way I do. Thank you.

Just a suggestion, but if you don't really like "acerbic and sarcastic," then...

 

[The Little Raven]

I don't mean to sound to critical, but that doesn't sound like the fault of the way the class was designed.

When a good deal of the wizard spell list says "You're like a thief, only better," that's a problem with design. When, at higher levels, it's more effective to have a wizard to cover both the caster role AND the thief role, there is a huge problem.

If you guys relied so much on the one wizard, and you let him blow all of his spells right away, before you reached the TPK fight, then it sounds more like it was because that was the way you guys played rather than the way the class was designed.

The problem is that the game is hugely balanced around the wizard and cleric's spellcasting, so that you have to rely on them in order to get things done. Higher level fights are especially suicidal without a caster that is at least at 40% effectiveness.

 

[GnomeWorks]

The problem is that the game is hugely balanced around the wizard and cleric's spellcasting, so that you have to rely on them in order to get things done. Higher level fights are especially suicidal without a caster that is at least at 40% effectiveness.

There's got to be a better way to address that than to make everyone the same, though.

 

[The Little Raven]

You can't design a D&D game that auto-happys everyone who plays it with no effort on anyone's part.

No, but you can design one that doesn't favor one character type (spellcasters) to the almost total exclusion of all others. When people are saying "Well, at high level, stop playing <class X> and make a spellcaster," that is a problem which can be solved. Suggesting that serious mechanical and utility imbalances are the DM's problem to deal with is just lazy game design philosophy.

D&D is dependent on interpersonal communication, interaction, group work.

Yes, it is. Which is why "wizard uber alles" is bad game design for this type of game. You can't really work as a group when you're overshadowing the group within their own roles.

D&D works because the DM and the players work to make it work.

And it should work because it's designed well, not putting the onus of balance considerations on the DM.

If the DM and players refuse to work to make it work, it will *not* work. And that reality is not something that can be 'ruled' away, 'balanced' away, or otherwise 'fixed.'

This is false. By removing all of the "I WIN!" capabilities from the wizard, you make it a class that plays WITH the group, rather than ABOVE the group.

In the 1E DMG, you will see the writing: 'welcome to the ranks of the overworked and underappreciated.' Those words of wisdom applied then, apply now, and will always apply.

Quoting the 1e DMG at me doesn't mean much. I'm notorious for not having much respect for Gygax's game design philosophy (especially if that recurring story about all his players being spellcasters and the non-spellcasters being all henchmen is true).

DMing was, is, and will always be hard, challenging, too much work, and underappreciated. But I do not think people will stop DMing because of this. People who DM, find ways to share in the fun despite these realities.

I agree DMing is challenging and rewarding. However, making the DM take up the slack of game design because a designer either can't be bothered to do it or simply favors one character type over others (which is the rumor) is just lazy on the designers' part.

 

[wally]

The problem is that the game is hugely balanced around the wizard and cleric's spellcasting, so that you have to rely on them in order to get things done. Higher level fights are especially suicidal without a caster that is at least at 40% effectiveness.

I think that is what I was getting at. If you let your spellcasters blow all their spells in one combat, and I don't mean the big one where it is absolutely needed, then it isn't the fault of the game design. Magi are supposed to have a level of intelligence, and they should know that it isn't in their best interest to shoot off all their magic at once, just in case you might need something later.

That's what I meant in that it seemed that it was your playstyle that led to this, not the game design itself.

-wally

 

[Remathilis]

There's got to be a better way to address that than to make everyone the same, though.

And that is?

 

[Rechan]

There's got to be a better way to address that than to make everyone the same, though.

The same what?

How is everyone the same? Everyone has different hit points, defenses, different abilities, different builds that key off different abilities, and those powers fulfill different functions.

Do you mean that the formula to compute bonuses is the same? Or everyone gains the same amount of feats or abilities at the same time?