Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="StreamOfTheSky" data-source="post: 5856032" data-attributes="member: 35909">I don't want perfect balance, I want noticeable differences in what a caster and non-caster can do.&nbsp; I don't mind a high level wizard being more outright powerful than a high level fighter.&nbsp; I say this as someone who mostly plays non-casters.What I do want, is for the casters to not be able to outperform the non-casters at their own jobs.&nbsp; I don't mind casters being the only ones who can create elaborate illusions, teleport around the world, mentally dominate others, etc...&nbsp; But I still want the noncasters to be relevant, even if not equal.&nbsp; I don't want spells that instantly solve locks or polymorph the caster into a better fighter than the fighter (buffing the FIGHTER w/ polymorph to make him even more crazy deadly is cool, though).I'm more concerned with overall gameplay balance than balance between characters.&nbsp; By that I mean things like being able to call it a day early and use up gobs of daily resources to make that 1-2 encounters a cinch.&nbsp; The ability to nova the hell out of enemies on the first round of combat with the most powerful crap you've got.&nbsp; The fact that not only can casters do all that, they also get the all day buff spells, the healing effects, the outright immunities...&nbsp; The &quot;all day&quot; stuff is what the non-casters are supposed to be good at, but a caster in 3E or older can have all day flight, mind affecting / poison / fear immunity, and...that's only 3 spells so far.&nbsp; I don't mind casters having the big budget effects, the encounter enders, the utility spells.&nbsp; I just would like to see them have less of them, be unable to use them en masse right off the bat, encroach upon noncasters less, and develop a greater defined role for noncasters and make the casters somewhat reliant on them.I want to give noncasters solid, concrete purposes for being there, without scrapping the &quot;unlimited, all day&quot; resources vs. &quot;limited access / expendable&quot; resources paradigm.This does mean noncasters need to gain a bunch of powerful, awesome, (in many cases) way beyond superhuman straight into quasi-magical territory abilities.&nbsp; Which I imagine will irk many people.&nbsp; My response is that I agree with Ryan Dancy and Justin Alexander about D&amp;D (3E and older) having &quot;quartiles&quot; of play.&nbsp; Low levels is more realistic, magic more limited, and at those levels the noncasters would have little magical stuff.&nbsp; This would change as higher levels are reached.&nbsp; If you don't like it...don't play higher levels.&nbsp; But if wizards are going to be teleporting around, trapping people's souls, bringing back the dead, and so forth...&nbsp; the noncasters need to surpass normal human capabilities to remain relevant!I hope this clarified things for you, and was not just the giant rambling wall of text it now appears to be. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="StreamOfTheSky, post: 5856032, member: 35909"] I don't want perfect balance, I want noticeable differences in what a caster and non-caster can do. I don't mind a high level wizard being more outright powerful than a high level fighter. I say this as someone who mostly plays non-casters. What I do want, is for the casters to not be able to outperform the non-casters at their own jobs. I don't mind casters being the only ones who can create elaborate illusions, teleport around the world, mentally dominate others, etc... But I still want the noncasters to be relevant, even if not equal. I don't want spells that instantly solve locks or polymorph the caster into a better fighter than the fighter (buffing the FIGHTER w/ polymorph to make him even more crazy deadly is cool, though). I'm more concerned with overall gameplay balance than balance between characters. By that I mean things like being able to call it a day early and use up gobs of daily resources to make that 1-2 encounters a cinch. The ability to nova the hell out of enemies on the first round of combat with the most powerful crap you've got. The fact that not only can casters do all that, they also get the all day buff spells, the healing effects, the outright immunities... The "all day" stuff is what the non-casters are supposed to be good at, but a caster in 3E or older can have all day flight, mind affecting / poison / fear immunity, and...that's only 3 spells so far. I don't mind casters having the big budget effects, the encounter enders, the utility spells. I just would like to see them have less of them, be unable to use them en masse right off the bat, encroach upon noncasters less, and develop a greater defined role for noncasters and make the casters somewhat reliant on them. I want to give noncasters solid, concrete purposes for being there, without scrapping the "unlimited, all day" resources vs. "limited access / expendable" resources paradigm. This does mean noncasters need to gain a bunch of powerful, awesome, (in many cases) way beyond superhuman straight into quasi-magical territory abilities. Which I imagine will irk many people. My response is that I agree with Ryan Dancy and Justin Alexander about D&D (3E and older) having "quartiles" of play. Low levels is more realistic, magic more limited, and at those levels the noncasters would have little magical stuff. This would change as higher levels are reached. If you don't like it...don't play higher levels. But if wizards are going to be teleporting around, trapping people's souls, bringing back the dead, and so forth... the noncasters need to surpass normal human capabilities to remain relevant! I hope this clarified things for you, and was not just the giant rambling wall of text it now appears to be. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification