Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Colmarr" data-source="post: 5521815" data-attributes="member: 59182">I'm not a doomsayer (I'm nowhere near Tony on that particular spectrum) but I do have misgivings.&nbsp;AEDU 4e was based around the idea that all characters should be comparable on all axes. While there were/are imperfections (aka Twin Strike) it's as close to objective balance as I think I've ever seen.&nbsp;Compare that to 3e and earlier editions, when the martial/caster divide was skewed on two axes: <ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">comparative power at differing levels (eg. martial classes are generally better at low levels, but quickly lose massive ground as the PCs level up); and</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">comparative power depending on the length of a adventuring day) (eg. martial classes are comparatively stronger the more encounters are squeezed into a day).</li>
</ol>There's no reason why those skewed axes can't create overall balance, but 3 and a half editions into D&amp;D we haven't seen it yet. It's a big call to suggest that we're going to see it from essentials design.&nbsp;Now, it's fair to say that uniform AEDU balance hasn't existed in 4e since the psionic power source was released, but the psionics mechanics were at least pushing 4e forward.&nbsp;There seems to be a very strong current trend of pushing 4e back toward earlier editions. Which I understand makes some gamers happy. Given how much I value game balance (and given my doubt that those skewed axes are going to be made to balance this time), it is for me cause for concern.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Colmarr, post: 5521815, member: 59182"] I'm not a doomsayer (I'm nowhere near Tony on that particular spectrum) but I do have misgivings. AEDU 4e was based around the idea that all characters should be comparable on all axes. While there were/are imperfections (aka Twin Strike) it's as close to objective balance as I think I've ever seen. Compare that to 3e and earlier editions, when the martial/caster divide was skewed on two axes: [LIST=1] [*]comparative power at differing levels (eg. martial classes are generally better at low levels, but quickly lose massive ground as the PCs level up); and [*]comparative power depending on the length of a adventuring day) (eg. martial classes are comparatively stronger the more encounters are squeezed into a day). [/LIST]There's no reason why those skewed axes can't create overall balance, but 3 and a half editions into D&D we haven't seen it yet. It's a big call to suggest that we're going to see it from essentials design. Now, it's fair to say that uniform AEDU balance hasn't existed in 4e since the psionic power source was released, but the psionics mechanics were at least pushing 4e forward. There seems to be a very strong current trend of pushing 4e back toward earlier editions. Which I understand makes some gamers happy. Given how much I value game balance (and given my doubt that those skewed axes are going to be made to balance this time), it is for me cause for concern. [/QUOTE]

Verification