Might vs Magic

[Spatula]

Ideally I would like the see everyone be able to contribute equally to Monte's "three pillars", although different classes (or characters) should be able to contribute in different ways. And wizards shouldn't be able to trump everyone else.

But here is a 91-page thread on the topic (over at RPG.net). Enjoy.

 

[Stormonu]

So, you mean: not at all?

We know better than that. It was balanced, but in a way different form than 4E. Part of 1E's balance was over the lifetime of the campaign, 4E's is "at this moment".

 

[Plane Sailing]

So, you mean: not at all?

I'm starting to see a pattern of you making one-line contrary answers. It isn't a good pattern.

Maybe it is just the last two threads I've been in. Please consider how you can contribute to a discussion, we don't have much patience at the moment for people who attempt to bait others into an argument.

Thanks

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm ok with unequally distributed, merely rough balance. I don't even mind some characters with "cosmic power, itty bitty living space." Though I'd prefer such characters not be the iconic wizard of the core game.

I am not ok with "itty bitty living space" as "flavor thing that doesn't really mean anything in play." Or for that matter, with "itty bitty living space now, cosmic power much later."

The really hilarious part to me on this subject though is that you could blend some of the 4E balance ideas with some early D&D tropes and get something that might work pretty well. For example, maybe the wizard starts out fairly competent at weapons early on, because he hasn't yet been casting mind-alterating magic all his life. Then as he gains that cosmic power over his career, those other skills practically disappear (whether literally off the sheet or just relatively speaking because they don't improve is a matter of taste and the math).

That is, if you make characters more broadly competent to start, you have a lot more room to unbalance where their power comes from as they progress, without messing up the game model.

 

[Sunseeker]

We know better than that. It was balanced, but in a way different form than 4E. Part of 1E's balance was over the lifetime of the campaign, 4E's is "at this moment".

That's sort of an unrealistic way of balancing though. "well in 10 levels you'll be the superstar instead of the Wizard who hsa been since the game started!"

I don't think everyone needs to be the star at any point, there shouldn't be stars in the game period. D&D is a teamwork game IMO and that's how balance should be established, to substantially contribute at any given point. If one guy is the only one capable of something, or shining more often than others, the game isn't balanced. It doesn't matter is they shine 10 times now and the other guy shines 10 times later. The fact is: for those 20 times 4/5ths of the party was barely involved.

I hate to make one of those "this would be a dealbreaker" but really if there's not a modicum of balance at all times between players, I have no interest in playing 5e. It's why I don't play 1e.

 

[KarinsDad]

Having qualities of a leader/general/director inside and outside the combat arena would be nice, as would a set of skills that would be useful in as many situations as possible.

Yup. I personally don't know why the Fighter isn't the Warlord.

If I'm a wimpy Wizard, you bet that I would often take direction from the guy trained in combat with the massive sword who is yelling out orders.


Alternatively, the player of that Fighter could opt to not have a very leader-like fighter and could just fire arrows or quietly stab foes.

 

[Meophist]

I wouldn't mind the game being balanced over the course of an adventuring day rather than over a single turn or battle. Personally, that'll be preferable.

 

[KarinsDad]

I wouldn't mind the game being balanced over the course of an adventuring day rather than over a single turn or battle. Personally, that'll be preferable.

Ah, but the $64,000 question is: How does a game designer do that?

 

[Meophist]

Ah, but the $64,000 question is: How does a game designer do that?

Base the game around random encounter rolls and mandate a certain number of encounters a day?

 

[SKyOdin]

Base the game around random encounter rolls and mandate a certain number of encounters a day?

I'd rather not pad out my game sessions with a lot of fighting just for the sake of fighting. If a fight exists just to drain a few resources and nothing else, it just fills up time in a game session that can be pressed for time as it is. That is why game balance built around having multiple fights packed into each in-game day can be a problem.