D&D 4E Will the 4E classes be deliberately unbalanced to get players to read?

[AtomicPope]

Gygax said a lot of things. Simply because he said it doesn't mean it is true in all things.

And you know more about Roleplaying because...

 

[Simon Marks]

*Edit. Sorry, shouldn't have posted.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I always thought the Toughness feat was there to prevent any feat that boosts your hp from being invented later on. It was designed to be really useless because they didn't want feats to boost hp. If anyone tried to invent a hp boosting feat the community would point to Toughness and say: -Look, there already is a feat that does that. It gives you 3 hp.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I always thought the Toughness feat was there to prevent any feat that boosts your hp from being invented later on. It was designed to be really useless because they didn't want feats to boost hp. If anyone tried to invent a hp boosting feat the community would point to Toughness and say: -Look, there already is a feat that does that. It gives you 3 hp.

Yet they made improved toughness anyway, which was at least slightly less useless.

 

[MindWanderer]

Not to mention Dwarf's Toughness, Giant's Toughness, and Dragon's Toughness in 3.0 splatbooks.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Gygax said a lot of things. Simply because he said it doesn't mean it is true in all things.

And you know more about Roleplaying because...

Why do you snark him this way? I'm confident you know more about mathematics than I do; does that mean anything you say about mathematics is true? I'll bet I know more about neuroscience than you do; so anything I say about the brain is true?

I for one respect Gygax for his role in creating the game but I always found a lot of his ideas and ways of expressing them eye-roll-worthy. Is that flat out illogical because I'm not someone like Dave Arneson?

 

[Greylock]

Sooooo....

How long did it take folks here to realise that Toughness was a sub-par feat? Does that make us all optimisers? And why do all the monsters and low level NPCs still take it, huh?

 

[Counterspin]

I greatly dislike system mastery as a concept. The system should be set up so that however you flop your character they will be useful. I don't think perfect balance is possible, but you should strive for it. Out of game action (additional reading) should not produce in game disparities (power level).

 

[AtomicPope]

Why do you snark him this way? I'm confident you know more about mathematics than I do; does that mean anything you say about mathematics is true? I'll bet I know more about neuroscience than you do; so anything I say about the brain is true?

I for one respect Gygax for his role in creating the game but I always found a lot of his ideas and ways of expressing them eye-roll-worthy. Is that flat out illogical because I'm not someone like Dave Arneson?

Before you try and be the forum tough hero, why don't you see what you're championing first. I quote from a credible source precisely what the cocreator of D&D, the entire reason this forum and hobby exists at all, had to say on the subject. Then someone dismisses the credible source without providing even a shred of evidence or substance.

So that's what you want to see is it?

Dissent without content.

 

[Family]

A couple of years back a friend and I had a D&D fight club going on the side of our real campaign.

We'd roll up PCs and fight. Winner stayed on, loser got to roll up a PC at 1 level higher. (At level 20 we faught till the champ died and started over at level 1).

If you won 3 in a row you got to change the environment to what you wanted.

The all time champ (his) was a level 8 archer who won 7 in a row! That means he eventually took down a level 15 PC I made specifically to beat him!

Competitive D&D can be really fun, tis true. But I mainly play to throw some underwear on the outside of my pants and imagine me and my buds venturing forth and defeating evil whilst looking cool.