[L&L] Balancing the Wizards in D&D

[Bedrockgames]

Herschel, how well designed a game is, that is a subjective call. By some measures one can say here were "advances" from 1e to 2e to 3e. By others there weren't. 3e introduced a lot of problems with balance and rules granularity (features or bugs depending on your point of view). It took a unified approach but arguably lost the benefit of the less unified designs of previous editions. Personally I found the NwP system superior to the 3e skill system for example.

 

[Herschel]

3E definitely had a number of bugs that came up with balance, etc. I also preferred the NWP system but the skill system was a more robust system. Some things they fixed caused new issues to come about but the actual guts of the game were added upon with more robust ideas and math. It's kinf of like a Tim Allen riding lawnmower, dropping a 350 in it will give it insane amounts of power but will the transmission/gear box/drive shaft handle it or will the end user ever tap in to it if it does.

One thing I thought with 3E is they didn't deconstruct and re-construct the game enough and certain sacred cows got in the way of making the game right. There were a lot of great ideas that were hamstrung by "legacy". One of the reasons I like 4E is because they did a better job of that.

"Better" here means more innovative, not preference.

 

[GM Dave]

3E definitely had a number of bugs that came up with balance, etc. I also preferred the NWP system but the skill system was a more robust system. Some things they fixed caused new issues to come about but the actual guts of the game were added upon with more robust ideas and math. It's kinf of like a Tim Allen riding lawnmower, dropping a 350 in it will give it insane amounts of power but will the transmission/gear box/drive shaft handle it or will the end user ever tap in to it if it does.

One thing I thought with 3E is they didn't deconstruct and re-construct the game enough and certain sacred cows got in the way of making the game right. There were a lot of great ideas that were hamstrung by "legacy". One of the reasons I like 4E is because they did a better job of that.

"Better" here means more innovative, not preference.

I agree that the shift from 2e to 3e when it comes to spells was mostly a copy and paste. There was little consideration of spells except making sure their were Arcane and Divine spells divided over 9 levels plus cantrips.

You can even find some odd bits in the 3.0 spells that came out as a result of the original text in 1e and 2e.

4e was the first edition that dumped all but the names and goals of the abilities and started from scratch.

This is why these abilities are better designed for the game system. From beginning to end they were meant to work with the 4e engine.

(If you need examples of what I mean look at spells like Shadow Walk 3e which speaks of the Plane of Shadow and has a 50% of abandoning someone or creature there at level 7 ~ 50% of almost the same as killing most things ~ sold!) (or Wind Walk, lasts 1 hr/lvl, 80% disguise against anyone if dressed in ? white ?, travel 60 mph, DR 20/+1, dismiss at will for individuals, lvl 6 Cleric ~ White ninja force and full on travel except if strong winds ~ there are so many ways to cause chaos with this combination of effects).

 

[billd91]

"Better" here means more innovative, not preference.

Innovative isn't necessarily better - just newer.

 

[Herschel]

In the context I used, it does.

Innovative: better, contemporary, cutting-edge, improvement, ingenious, inventive, leading-edge, state-of-the-art

English is a bit of a squishy language, which is why I'm outlining context.

 

[Janaxstrus]

In the context I used, it does.

Innovative: better, contemporary, cutting-edge, improvement, ingenious, inventive, leading-edge, state-of-the-art

English is a bit of a squishy language, which is why I'm outlining context.

All opinion, not fact.

 

[Bedrockgames]

All opinion, not fact.

Exactly. These things are not comparable to advancements in computers or cars.

 

[Herschel]

All opinion, not fact.

Except it's cut & pasted DIRECTLY from the Thesaurus, which is used to give context. In this case, it is fact because that's the context being used.

It also speaks nothing about preference.

 

[Herschel]

Exactly. These things are not comparable to advancements in computers or cars.

Actually, cars are an apt comparison in this context. Look at it another way: The Delorean. The Stainless Steel body never rusts. That's a better body design in this context. It's expensive, and expensive to repair, etc. but it's still an improvement on 1980s Toyotas, for example. Whether or not you or I want to spend the money on that innovation is another story. My personal cost vs. benefit may mean I'd rather have that 80s Toyota that will rust horribly because I can replace it twice for what I'd spend on the Delorean.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Except it's cut & pasted DIRECTLY from the Thesaurus, which is used to give context. In this case, it is fact because that's the context being used.

It also speaks nothing about preference.

That is because you pivoted the discussion on a single word. New mechanics are not always better.