races of destiny --has D&D 3.5 jumped the shark?

[Haffrung Helleyes]

oh please

Get off your high horse, Ari.
I don't particularly care what you think of me, or my posts. It's obvious from the size of this thread that there are plenty of gamers here who share my opinion on the subject. You are not the grand arbiter of who gets taken seriously on EnWorld and who does not.

And there _is_ a universal yardstick of balance in 3E, and as a game designer I am sure you know it well.

In 3E, the yardstick of balance is that when a group of 4 PCs -- a Fighter, a Wizard, a Rogue, and a Cleric -- go on an adventure, on the whole they are equally able to contribute towards resolving that adventure successfullly. All the other classes are variations on this theme.

The biggest problem with the Frenzied Berserker is exactly what you mention -- that it's increased combat ability is 'balanced' by increasing the danger not to it, but to the other PCs.

A four member party with a frenzied berserker substituted for the fighter may be balanced with respect to the monsters, but the PCs are no longer balanced with respect to each other. The Frenzied berserker's increased combat effectiveness is balanced with a penalty which applies to the other PCs, not to the Frenzied Berserker.

And I think the decision to allow the Frenzied Berserker to ignore infinite amounts of HP damage while in a frenzy was questionable.

Besides being imbalanced, the Frenzied Berserker is also a prestige class which requires heavy metagaming. Because D&D is a game played among friends, the other PCs are expected to accept the fact that the Frenzied Berserker tries to kill them in a blind rage from time to time. This simply isn't believable. What would you do if one of your coworkers tried to murder you every few weeks? Would you go out to lunch with them?

Ken

You'd argue incorrectly.

See, you're starting off on the wrong foot by saying "some groups probably don't care about game balance at all." Right off the bat, you're implying that there's one universal yardstick of balance, and anyone who feels otherwise clearly doesn't care about keeping things balanced.

In fact, you can have multiple groups who each care deeply about balance, but disagree strongly on what balance actually means.

For instance, I have no problem with the mystic theurge or the true necromancer prestige classes. I believe they are balanced in play, that their limited abilities here make up for their increased abilities there. I know other people, people who are just as concerned with balance as I am, who won't allow them because they feel they're unbalanced. I'm a game designer. So's the guy I most recently argued with. Does that mean one of us doesn't care about balance? Nope; just means we disagree on where the line is drawn in this particular case.

We've got a frenzied berzerker in the game I play in on Thursdays. He does an obscene amount of damage, sure. But he's also caused us as many problems as he's solved. Would I allow one in a game I was running? I don't know. But I also don't know if I agree that it's unbalanced--and if it is, it's only by a marginal amount.

And "fun" is even more of a subjective term. Some people look for very different things out of D&D. I have friends who are happy playing it as almost a pure tactical game. I have others who would be happy to never see a battlemat or a miniature in their lives. I have friends who hate dwarves and wish they were removed from the game. I have friends who think dwarves are the coolest race ever.

Quite simply, you cannot expect to be taken seriously if you're going to make sweeping proclamations about what's balanced, or what's fun, or what "most people" want, or what "adults like." (Yes, I'm addressing more than one poster here.) Because the fact is, you're wrong. Always. No matter what you say. You may be speaking for yourself. You may be speaking for everyone you know. But you are not speaking for everyone. Ever.

If you want to talk about specific ideas--like the illumians--and whether or not you think they were good ideas, hey, great. I'm all for it. But when someone steps in claiming that WotC's designers don't know how to do their jobs, or that any single book indicates that the company has lost sight of what they're doing, well, that person immediately gets a head start in my "not worth listening to" book. The first mark of an intelligent argument is one that acknowledges it's not the only viewpoint.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

In any event, it is my understanding that Andy Collins is a lead developer with "authorita," which is why I "credit" him as I do.

Your credit the "developer (lead)", but not the actual designers? Have a grudge? What would a designer have to do to earn your ire?

 

[Psion]

In fact, you can have multiple groups who each care deeply about balance, but disagree strongly on what balance actually means.

True dat.

I think a cursory examination of the rules forum will show a similar pattern.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Get off your high horse, Ari.
I don't particularly care what you think of me, or my posts. It's obvious from the size of this thread that there are plenty of gamers here who share my opinion on the subject. You are not the grand arbiter of who gets taken seriously on EnWorld and who does not.

I never said there weren't people--even lots of people--who agree with you. I said it was inappropriate for you to claim to speak for "most" people. Even if 100% of the posters agreed with you, it still wouldn't validate that claim, because ENWorld doesn't represent most gamers.

And there _is_ a universal yardstick of balance in 3E, and as a game designer I am sure you know it well.

In 3E, the yardstick of balance is that when a group of 4 PCs -- a Fighter, a Wizard, a Rogue, and a Cleric -- go on an adventure, on the whole they are equally able to contribute towards resolving that adventure successfullly. All the other classes are variations on this theme.

And if it were that simple, you wouldn't have unbalanced classes written by people who are normally good designers, and you wouldn't have page after page of rules questions on sites like this one.

Who decides what "equally" means? Does it mean they get to make the exact same amount of dice rolls? The exact same amount of, for lack of a better term, "screen time"?

Balance is part guesswork, and the game designers will be the first to tell you that. Monte's said it. Sean's said it. It's simply the way of the game.

As a game designer, I know how to avoid the most glaring balance problems. I know how to playtest. But anyone in the industry who tells you how they have a foolproof way of ensuring 100% balance on all aspects of everything they create is either a liar or delusional. Because the game isn't the same from group to group, so balance cannot be the same from group to group. That's the case using even the four basic classes--fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard. In an urban, investigative-style campaign, the rogue is going to shine. In a wilderness campaign with a high quantity of undead, the rogue is much less useful.

Until there is only one accepted way to play the game (and I certainly wouldn't want there to be, personally), there cannot be a true universal yardstick--merely guidelines. And different people of the same skill will continue to interpret those guidelines differently.

And BTW, I'm not telling anyone else how to react to your posts. I simply said that I don't take people seriously when they claim to speak for a majority of others--which is precisely why I didn't claim to be the "ultimate arbiter" of who gets taken seriously.

 

[BryonD]

Also, we "knee-jerks" are no more amusing than wotc apologists who uncritically accept anything that comes down the pipeline.

giggle giggle
I don't get called "uncritical" around here very often.

If you think I'm a wotc apologist then you haven't been paying attention.
When I like something wotc does I say so and when I think they have done something badly, I say so. (Funny, in this very thread I referred to the topic product as a "dog". Maybe actually reading the debate at hand will hep you strenghten your argument.)

There are "knee-jerk" haters, such as you seem to be. And there are see no evils as well. Like the most posters here, I disagree with both those groups quite frequently.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

ok

Thanks for your reasoned reply. I think I overreacted to your earlier post. I apologize!

I agree with you that it's a really difficult task to balance prestige classes perfectly. I don't demand that.

My concern is that some of the balance problems I'm seeing in prestige classes these days (and the Frenzied Berserker is simply the most obvious one that comes to mind) are of the most glaring nature.

To me, they call into question whether adequate playtesting has been done, and whether there has been sufficient peer review in WoTC prior to publication.

I seriously doubt, for example, that Johnathan Tweet would have approved the Frenzied Berserker, had it passed over his desk. My personal opinion (based on the quality of his work and a few conversations we've had via email) is that he would have sent it back for more work.

I would like to see WoTC set up a review board that would have to sanction every prestige class, feat, and monster that they publish. I would be happy if people like Johnathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Sean Reynolds were on this board.

And for the record, some people have complained that the Complete... line of books rehashes old material when they redo prestige classes. I am of the opposite opinion. I would much rather see existing prestige classes reworked, playtested and refined, than see any more new ones added.

Ken

I never said there weren't people--even lots of people--who agree with you. I said it was inappropriate for you to claim to speak for "most" people. Even if 100% of the posters agreed with you, it still wouldn't validate that claim, because ENWorld doesn't represent most gamers.



And if it were that simple, you wouldn't have unbalanced classes written by people who are normally good designers, and you wouldn't have page after page of rules questions on sites like this one.

Who decides what "equally" means? Does it mean they get to make the exact same amount of dice rolls? The exact same amount of, for lack of a better term, "screen time"?

Balance is part guesswork, and the game designers will be the first to tell you that. Monte's said it. Sean's said it. It's simply the way of the game.

As a game designer, I know how to avoid the most glaring balance problems. I know how to playtest. But anyone in the industry who tells you how they have a foolproof way of ensuring 100% balance on all aspects of everything they create is either a liar or delusional. Because the game isn't the same from group to group, so balance cannot be the same from group to group. That's the case using even the four basic classes--fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard. In an urban, investigative-style campaign, the rogue is going to shine. In a wilderness campaign with a high quantity of undead, the rogue is much less useful.

Until there is only one accepted way to play the game (and I certainly wouldn't want there to be, personally), there cannot be a true universal yardstick--merely guidelines. And different people of the same skill will continue to interpret those guidelines differently.

And BTW, I'm not telling anyone else how to react to your posts. I simply said that I don't take people seriously when they claim to speak for a majority of others--which is precisely why I didn't claim to be the "ultimate arbiter" of who gets taken seriously.

 

[BryonD]

And BTW, I'm not telling anyone else how to react to your posts. I simply said that I don't take people seriously when they claim to speak for a majority of others--which is precisely why I didn't claim to be the "ultimate arbiter" of who gets taken seriously.

Well said.

I know you were not referencing my comment, but just to be clear, my claim regarding majority opinion is based on nothing more than an observation regarding the preponderance of comments I have read here and heard offline.
I certainly don't claim to speak for it. I just think I am making a rather safe observation.

Would you say I'm uncritical toward WotC, Ari? Heh. (asking in the lightest hearted possible way)

 

[Mouseferatu]

Thanks for your reasoned reply. I think I overreacted to your earlier post. I apologize!

Apology happily accepted. I know how easy it is to read extra meaning into net posts. The first person to invent some means of conveying tone of voice in print--without resorting to two-dozen smilies every line --will be rich.

My concern is that some of the balance problems I'm seeing in prestige classes these days (and the Frenzied Berserker is simply the most obvious one that comes to mind) are of the most glaring nature.

To me, they call into question whether adequate playtesting has been done, and whether there has been sufficient peer review in WoTC prior to publication.

I actually don't disagree with you. There have been a number of balance decisions made recently that make me wonder what a specific author was thinking. Not a lot, but I have seen 'em.

I know that WotC recently made a public announcement (I think it was even on this site at one point) about the fact that they'd been way overworked and backed up, and books were going through development stages with less attention than they would have liked. They say they've since acquired additional people, so hopefully those problems will cease to appear once the schedule moves past those particular books that were impacted by the shortage.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Would you say I'm uncritical toward WotC, Ari? Heh. (asking in the lightest hearted possible way)

Bryon, if there's anything toward which you're uncritical, I've yet to see it.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I mean guys with letters floating around there heads is cool to 5 year olds not adults

Well, that's not true. Unless a 24-year-old doesn't count as "adult" in your personal book.

I like the idea of illumians. Until I get Races of Destiny in my hands, I won't know whether or not I end up liking the idea as it has been implemented, but as it stands I'm quite interested in them.

Of course, I'm the guy who despises Tolkienesque fantasy in his D&D and embraces the weirdness that goes beyond that limited (and limiting, to my mind) subgenre, so it's not really surprising.

so we mature gamers don't like guys with letters floating around there heads its dumb.

I would have thought that mature gamers would be mature enough to phrase their arguments cogently, something like, hmm . . .

"A race of creatures with glowing symbols floating around their heads is a significant departure from the rest of what has been written for Third Edition D&D, and I feel it doesn't cohere with the tone or feel observable across the rest of the line."

You'd be wrong but at least you'd have expressed yourself well.