Vaalingrade
Legend
Turning against balance is such a weird modern thing. It's like the whole 'tyranny of fun' thing.
I think its just a fear of change, which is a common human trait.Turning against balance is such a weird modern thing. It's like the whole 'tyranny of fun' thing.
back in the day there was a superhero D20 game called mutants and masterminds.Turning against balance is such a weird modern thing. It's like the whole 'tyranny of fun' thing.
Are you are saying that 7 years, literal millions of players, and countless surveys in incapable of uncovering something glaring that a year playtest that started incomplete in terms of the classes and subclasses and changed multiple times missed?not so glaring if they passed the playtest and went into print, are they?
I think what the Monk is good at is just not what people who want to play a martial artist want to be good at.That to me is the kind of thing we need to address in 5.5e. Even if a class is workable, doesn't mean its truly "working". I think the monk is the same way. At the end of day, a monk is absolutely playable and not as bad as some people think... but there is a reason that so many threads have popped up over the years around "monks sucking". There is just something missing about them, something incomplete, something that juuuuuust isn't quite hitting the mark.
I think the best answer to this is in subsystems like what Buffy used.... the idea of drama or plot "points". Aka the strong characters are just better than the weaker ones....but the weaker ones get points that can change scenes, allowing them to pull off cool manuevers or daring escapes all their own.now these two don't sound too bad right... I mean they are both JLA member so of course they are similar... try it with the avengers and you get Black widow deals similar damage to Hulk.
That's a great definition of a class failing to work: it doesn't provide the fantasy the fluff implies. That's what classes are supposed to do.I think what the Monk is good at is just not what people who want to play a martial artist want to be good at.
PHB, pg 14, in the creating a character section: "Without armor or a shield, your character's AC equals 10 + his or her Dexterity modifier. If your character wears armor, carries a shield, or both, calculate your AC using the rules in chapter 5."yup even in the basic rules make the term "base AC" a defined term, something like your dex+armor+magic is your base and other things like sheilds and cover (or just make a shield count as lesser cover) add to it...
What is the point of Strength at that point beyond one skill and the ability to wear some heavy armors without a movement penalty?remove the finesse property entirely. make all melee attacks use str or dex, and all range attack use dex or wis. Then make the thrown properity allow for str to damage but not to hit.
yes totally, and again I just totally did the most bare bone example, to give M&M the benfit they DO have things like that too...I think the best answer to this is in subsystems like what Buffy used.... the idea of drama or plot "points". Aka the strong characters are just better than the weaker ones....but the weaker ones get points that can change scenes, allowing them to pull off cool manuevers or daring escapes all their own.
I think it works because its intentionally asymmetric, trying to balance two cosmically imbalanced characters is just an exercise in failure, the better answer is not to try, but instead give them completely different schticks.
well my statement was an example of what it could be, since the term is not defined now, so I don't know how an example of what COULD be clarified can possible me WRONG?!?PHB, pg 14, in the creating a character section: "Without armor or a shield, your character's AC equals 10 + his or her Dexterity modifier. If your character wears armor, carries a shield, or both, calculate your AC using the rules in chapter 5."
You statement of "dex+armor+magic" isn't correct - it ignores the max dex of some armors, which is why wearing armor it refers you to those specific rules. It would be harmful to have conflicting rules put in.
1) I don't NEED to understand any of it to make suggestions, because as I have pointed out before NO ONE PAYS ME TO WRITE RULESWhat is the point of Strength at that point beyond one skill and the ability to wear some heavy armors without a movement penalty?
Dex is usually considered the strongest of ability scores. Making it more applicable makes it more powerful - that's introducing more balance issues then you are fixing. In order to change the rules effectively, you must first understand them and their implications.
It's ALWAYS the Wizards players who complain the most about balance.I'm very confused at how notoriously difficult to balance Superhero RPGs, which do have to deal with a canonical issue of street-levelers mixed with cosmic heroes mixed with creators pets like Batman having balance issues has anything to do with balance in Fantasy where the creators decide the relative power level of the classes.
Unless this is another 'Wizards ruin everything' issue where wizards are expected to be gods (like Batman) and parity with martials would threaten them.
Term is defined, I literally gave you the page in the PHB and the quote.well my statement was an example of what it could be, since the term is not defined now, so I don't know how an example of what COULD be clarified can possible me WRONG?!?
You are posting in a public forum about rules changes, it's generally considered courteous to "understand any of it" before posting so you can present an informed opinion. If you would like to proclaim that you don't know what you are talking about because you aren't paid to do it, that's your perogative. It does give others an understanding of what weight to put on your suggested rules changes. Thanks for the heads up, I won't bother to discuss rules changes with you.1) I don't NEED to understand any of it to make suggestions, because as I have pointed out before NO ONE PAYS ME TO WRITE RULES
ask the 1st level party who died to a fireball their wild sorc accidentally cast if everything is absolutely fine.
sorcs are playable but they still could use some love. And that’s not just forum goers saying it, Wotcs own polls have sorcs near the bottom
I mean you just did give a survey that says Sorcs are near the bottom, so we are half way thereMy google-fu has not been able to bring back anything on results of class surveys, but it easily could be discussed in a video or somewhere else that wouldn't easily find it. Can you give a source that WotC surveys saying sorcerers are near the bottom?
If you use the rules to represent in-universe power (like DnD usually does), it's basically impossible to balance street-level superheroes and god-level superheroes. If they were DnD characters, Thor would always be better than Hawkeye.I'm very confused at how notoriously difficult to balance Superhero RPGs, which do have to deal with a canonical issue of street-levelers mixed with cosmic heroes mixed with creators pets like Batman having balance issues has anything to do with balance in Fantasy where the creators decide the relative power level of the classes.
Unless this is another 'Wizards ruin everything' issue where wizards are expected to be gods (like Batman) and parity with martials would threaten them.
The most popular full caster is the Warlock - not by a lot but it's the winner. Is that due to simplicity, customizability, having the best 'story' for the class, or just doing the best job representing that story? I for one don't know.I mean you just did give a survey that says Sorcs are near the bottom, so we are half way there
The trick then is in asking why that is the case. Is it mechanics, flavor, is that people just like playing the "core 4" (in which case poor clerics). Is it that paladins are too "lawful stupid" for most people. Is the fighter and rogue OP and that's why people like to play them etc etc.
it was an example of too much balance... in order to make a game (any game) you need to balance it to a point but have enough clear differences that things don't feel or look the same.I'm very confused at how notoriously difficult to balance Superhero RPGs, which do have to deal with a canonical issue of street-levelers mixed with cosmic heroes mixed with creators pets like Batman having balance issues has anything to do with balance in Fantasy where the creators decide the relative power level of the classes.
Unless this is another 'Wizards ruin everything' issue where wizards are expected to be gods (like Batman) and parity with martials would threaten them.
Monk is good at speed. The endI think what the Monk is good at is just not what people who want to play a martial artist want to be good at.