|
TKIY posted:I guess I've been reading along here since the first page (and the previous thread) and I don't get why MonsterEnvy is getting piled on. It's like several posters here are adamant that their numerical results prove that he is HAVING FUN WRONG. When discussing the rules, and especially when arguing that a rule isn't broken like people say it is, you can't actually be referring to your houserules without telling anyone. Or rather, you can, but people will tell you that you're wrong and quote the rulebook at you until you quit the thread for a while. This is not the same as people telling you you can't have houserules which make the game more fun for you. Once you realise that you are having a different conversation from everyone else (ie, you're talking about rules you made up which work well for you, they are talking about the rules in the book which do not work well for you or for anyone), you need to stop arguing that the rules that you changed are fine in the book. Otherwise people will pile on you.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
TKIY posted:Not going to rehash the first two since its dead horse territory, but here's a question. What is the high bar then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Clerics and Druids are casters. Lets not forget bards and warlocks. Honestly the real important question isn't "can you have an effective party with only casters?" its "cam you have one without any casters what so ever?" to which all signs so far point to no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:A game that is balanced and fun? The two are not mutually exclusive - the opposite really, as imbalances will cause frustration with the game. Fun is a subjective description. Balanced is an objective description. As it is a subjective opinion, being fun doesn't mean much beyond being able to sell it. The argument about "fun" as a measure of quality also occurs in video game circles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Fun is a subjective description. Balanced is an objective description. As it is a subjective opinion, being fun doesn't mean much beyond being able to sell it. The argument about "fun" as a measure of quality also occurs in video game circles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:I guess a better way to put it is that it is possible to have the elements people like about Next while still having better balance. I still am baffled that the developers claim to have done a 'numbers pass' on the game. I think the Skeleton thing has pretty much proven that at the very least they didn't take that scenario into account. The Beastmaster Ranger thing sounds pretty messed up too. I doubt that they are going to release their documentation on it though so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:When discussing the rules, and especially when arguing that a rule isn't broken like people say it is, you can't actually be referring to your houserules without telling anyone. Or rather, you can, but people will tell you that you're wrong and quote the rulebook at you until you quit the thread for a while. This is not the same as people telling you you can't have houserules which make the game more fun for you. Was that directed at me or the MonsterEnvy criticism? I'm perfectly fine with saying that there are balance issues between the classes, I'm just not finding that the lack of balance affects the enjoyment of the game with a group of friends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Lets not forget bards and warlocks. Honestly the real important question isn't "can you have an effective party with only casters?" its "cam you have one without any casters what so ever?" to which all signs so far point to no. Well of course it's a no, every class can cast spells. (Even the Barbaian gets a few ritual ones with the Totem Warrior path.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Cainer posted:I was wondering about that too, my group hasn't started our game yet but seeing all the caster supremacy stuff in the thread I don't want the martial player fighter to feel left out. DM and me thought giving him the martial feat that lets him have maneuvers would help but I don't know how affective it is. You would have to alter the Superiority Die so it recharges every turn to make it at all useful. Otherwise its one semi-useful-but-not-really trick per Short/Long rest! Wee!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:I guess a better way to put it is that it is possible to have the elements people like about Next while still having better balance. I still am baffled that the developers claim to have done a 'numbers pass' on the game. It's not even really a "numbers" thing though. The Next Fighter is better balanced than the 3.X Fighter, though that's not exactly the highest bar to clear itself but still. The issue is, just like it was back in 3.X, that you have one set of classes that get to apply their own fiat to things and one set of classes who don't and somehow that's supposed to be balanced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:You would have to alter the Superiority Die so it recharges every turn to make it at all useful. Otherwise its one semi-useful-but-not-really trick per Short/Long rest! Wee! Wouldn't that be over-balancing though? I don't know enough about maneuvers to know for sure how good they are but it sounds like fighters with superioirty dice every turn would be using them like gangbusters, while casters only get a few spells per day. Magic is really good but its not unlimited.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Cainer posted:Wouldn't that be over-balancing though? I don't know enough about maneuvers to know for sure how good they are but it sounds like fighters with superioirty dice every turn would be using them like gangbusters, while casters only get a few spells per day. Magic is really good but its not unlimited. The Fighter could indeed get superiority dice all day. Some nerfs might be in order or this could be pretty op imo...
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Things like Concentration and flatter math mean that, with respect to caster supremacy, 5e is quantitatively better than 3/3.5. However, qualitatively, it still has the same problem, which is that the mechanics that represent narrative power (spells) are not equitably distributed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Cainer posted:Magic is really good but its not unlimited. It doesn't need to be unlimited. It needs to last until the next extended/long rest. Also the fighter dice maneuvers are pretty lame, giving him one or two a turn instead of the current set-up would be fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:It doesn't need to be unlimited. It needs to last until the next extended/long rest. So maybe just straight up give him the Battle master's 4 dice to use between every short rest? Read some of the maneuvers, they seem pretty neat and would give him some options along the same lines as casters. Though I'm not sure how many maneuvers to give him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
TKIY posted:Not going to rehash the first two since its dead horse territory, but here's a question. What is the high bar then? There are quite a lot of different possible ones. Different games try to do different things. This is an incomplete list - and I know of no game that meets all the high bars. First, there's pacing. Keeping the energy up is basically the second fun bar. To be honest most versions of D&D aren't very good at this. 4e fails on the "Combat takes too drat long" scale - pace is important to keeping energy up. This is exactly why the 5e monster statblock is a problem with the looking spells up, and why people consider light rules are automatically good. Second, there's fiero. Triumphing over adversity. The original D&D was based heavily round this - and for Fiero to work you need pretty good balance because you can't easily design the same assault course for a six year old and an Olympic athlete. Torchbearer is an excellent game in this genre. Third, there's genre emulation. Things turning out the way you expect for the stories you wish to tell. D&D isn't sure what it's trying to emulate other than itself (although 4e does a good job of action fantasy). Better examples would be Fate games like Dresden Files and Atomic Robo, Cortex+ games like Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, Leverage, and Smallville, and any good PBtA game like Apocalypse World, Black Stars Rise, and especially Monsterhearts. Fourth, there's inspiration. The game itself producing interesting factors. D&D does this a little with the spell list. Better examples (in part due to pacing) would be PBtA games like Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts as would Cortex+ games like Leverage and Smallville, relationship map games like Smallville and Hillfolk Fifth, there's structure. Few RPGs have this. I'm not sure that other than oD&D many had it before Paul Czege's My Life With Master - but it's best seen in Jason Morningstar games like Fiasco (which plays round a modified five act structure). Leverage would be another good example. Structure helps ensure satisfaction as things reach fitting conclusions and don't drag on forever. (This one can be thought of as strategic pacing).
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Cainer posted:So maybe just straight up give him the Battle master's 4 dice to use between every short rest? Read some of the maneuvers, they seem pretty neat and would give him some options along the same lines as casters. Though I'm not sure how many maneuvers to give him. I've read them. Knocking someone prone, disarming them temporarily, and pushing 3 squares is not along the same lines as casters. Some are okay as numbers buffs (adding dice to your hit roll, pgood) but they aren't very good in general nor are they especially interesting. Compare to a monk stunning whatever he hits with 1 Ki.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Just wanna point out that Reign has totally random chargen that manages to be completely balanced and intermixable with point-buy chargen. It's not impossible to make random character generation that isn't also random capability distribution. You could easily have, say, a six stat array that ensures everybody gets a 16 in something and an 8 something else and an assortment of values in between and then simply randomly determine the order in which those stats are applied. Or you could do what the 4E-based Gamma World did which had all sorts of random character generation but was nonetheless designed to ensure that you had solid ability scores where it mattered most for the character you'd rolled up. And in both old-school D&D and in 4e Gamma World, permanent character mortality is by default high enough that rolling up a relatively subpar character doesn't mean much in the long run, and character creation is fast enough that, if your character dies or if you decide that you just don't want to play that character in this adventure, you can roll up another one without dragging everything down while you do so. It's a completely different scenario when you roll the dice to determine the base level stats of a far more complicated character, one that you could be playing every session for weeks, months, or even years, as is expected from 3e onwards (and, in my experience, was also the norm in AD&D as most people actually played it, though that typically required a lot of fudging on the DM's part to alleviate the randomness of character death).
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
I've been discussing Pathfinder/5e balance issues with a few people off the boards, and an opinion that seems to be slowly growing in strength is "I don't want classes to be balanced. I want certain classes to just outright be better, perfect balance is horse poo poo." Its nice that they're at least up-front with me. (I miss BECMI weapon masteries and getting a kingdom.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
TKIY posted:I'm just not finding that the lack of balance affects the enjoyment of the game with a group of friends. What level are you playing at? Lack of balance is something that gets worse at higher levels (even if 5th manages to have caster supremacy at the unprecedentedly low 2nd level with the Druid*). * Pun-Pun doesn't count. That's a clear exploit, not a broken by playing the rules as intended.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I've read them. Knocking someone prone, disarming them temporarily, and pushing 3 squares is not along the same lines as casters. Some are okay as numbers buffs (adding dice to your hit roll, pgood) but they aren't very good in general nor are they especially interesting. Well, I mean along the lines of actually having options so its not just stab, next turn, stab again etc. Trying to figure out how to word this well enough. Basicly giving fighters weaker but more often usable options then the casters and their few casts per long rest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Cainer posted:Well, I mean along the lines of actually having options so its not just stab, next turn, stab again etc. Trying to figure out how to word this well enough. Basicly giving fighters weaker but more often usable options then the casters and their few casts per long rest. This is one of those things that sounds nice on paper but in practice doesn't actually work very well. Like, just give everybody the same degree of "weaker but more useable options" and "limited but powerful options," you aren't hurting anyone by doing so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Cainer posted:Well, I mean along the lines of actually having options so its not just stab, next turn, stab again etc. Trying to figure out how to word this well enough. Basicly giving fighters weaker but more often usable options then the casters and their few casts per long rest. I get what you're saying. My issue with casters in 5th and a lot of other games is way their power is balanced around, "Oh, they don't get to use it very often, so when they do use it, it should be amazing!" The problem there is as I said before; they don't need to use it often, just often enough. In practice, this ends up meaning that the caster dominates those times he has his spells ready to go. poo poo like that happened in 4e too, epic wizards were absurd. My eberron wizard managed, with a bit of foresight, bind a demon to his will (Bel Shalor, if anyone cares about eberron lore to know how dumb that is). This was because wizard dailies are busted as gently caress in 4e and absolutely crush encounters they're used in. Here's the difference in 4e though; that ridiculous stunt drained all of my wizard's resources for the day. Every daily attack power and utility, saved for that encounter and burned out to pull that off. You're pretty limited in 4e because you get at most 3 (4 with a paragon path) daily powers per extended rest, plus whatever utility powers you pick up. 5e Wizard starts with 2 daily spell slots and keeps getting more from there. This leads to what I was getting at before: it doesn't matter that the wizard can "only" cast X spells per rest if she only needs to cast X spells between rests. A spell doesn't have to literally delete the enemies to render an encounter void; just Sleep the goblin lord's minions and let the party gently caress him up, clean up the minions after. When you have enough slots to bust that sort of poo poo out consistently, it warps the nature of the game. So when you have a Fighter who's got these always-ready, pretty okay abilities turn-by-turn all day long standing next to the Wizard who can click an "I win" button X times per day/adventure/whatever, you kinda have to make sure the Wizard can't hit that button often enough to make the Fighter's niche meaningless. Lower levels in 5e work out okay, but as you get higher poo poo gets real goofy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Cainer posted:People are still harping on about rolling stats? Its just an option, I find it fun so I do it, you don't find it fun? That's alright since it's just an option and you can use the array or whatever. Do whatever you have the most fun with. Cainer posted:Well, I mean along the lines of actually having options so its not just stab, next turn, stab again etc. Trying to figure out how to word this well enough. Basicly giving fighters weaker but more often usable options then the casters and their few casts per long rest. Well.. I've got my house rules if you're curious. You can ignore the class feature changes and just use the Maneuver ones. It won't balance the game but it will give your martials something to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
EscortMission posted:(I miss BECMI weapon masteries and getting a kingdom.) The 2e fighter was basically Next's broken Necromancer except his skeleton posse was covered in swole muscles and skin, and never had to be summoned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone has fun player a fighter or a rogue in D&D combats. Roleplay is fine and all, if you have fun being your character then that's cool. But when you're in combat rounds and literally the only thing you can do is say "I attack", how is that not really boring and dumb? I guess it's not literally the only thing. You can also move and attack. Or attack several times. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:What level are you playing at? Lack of balance is something that gets worse at higher levels (even if 5th manages to have caster supremacy at the unprecedentedly low 2nd level with the Druid*). 5th level right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Boing posted:I don't know how anyone has fun player a fighter or a rogue in D&D combats. Roleplay is fine and all, if you have fun being your character then that's cool. But when you're in combat rounds and literally the only thing you can do is say "I attack", how is that not really boring and dumb? I heard one guy kind of enjoyed it once in this one session with a previous edition in the right group of friends and the DM was awesome and they houseruled it so it wasn't like that, so I'm sure it's not really a problem for anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Boing posted:I don't know how anyone has fun player a fighter or a rogue in D&D combats. Roleplay is fine and all, if you have fun being your character then that's cool. But when you're in combat rounds and literally the only thing you can do is say "I attack", how is that not really boring and dumb? Eh, sometimes you don't want to really think about what powers to use and whatnot. Like with the Slayer in 4e. It's pretty dull if you look at its mechanics, but it's real good at killin' poo poo and being hardy and if that's all I want to do then that works for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Boing posted:I don't know how anyone has fun player a fighter or a rogue in D&D combats. Roleplay is fine and all, if you have fun being your character then that's cool. But when you're in combat rounds and literally the only thing you can do is say "I attack", how is that not really boring and dumb?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:...and maybe an option for a simple caster as well. Why is this maybe? What about wanting to just make big attacks without too many options screams sword guy? What's so totally loving bizarre about the idea of a guy in a robe who shoots acid lightning at enemies and that's all he really does? e: Sorry, that came out pretty hostile which was not the intent. It's just that "some people like a simple class" is often used as a rebuttal of "the fighter is kinda boring", and it's just kinda weird that the people who use it never seem to think that it would be cool if every class had a simple option and a complex option so players could pick what they wanted thematically and mechanically. There's literally no game design reason that sword guy = simple class and magic guy = complex class and not the other way round. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:This is one of those things that sounds nice on paper but in practice doesn't actually work very well. Like, just give everybody the same degree of "weaker but more useable options" and "limited but powerful options," you aren't hurting anyone by doing so. It can be done. See Feng Shui and its Martial Arts/Gun Schticks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:This is one of those things that sounds nice on paper but in practice doesn't actually work very well. Like, just give everybody the same degree of "weaker but more useable options" and "limited but powerful options," you aren't hurting anyone by doing so. Generic Octopus posted:Also a lot of good stuff. Problem is I don't know how to balance that. To me fighters are a class that beat up and survive things that would normally kill most casters. If they had powers as strong to keep up with wizards then what point would there be to being a wizard? Since fighters would have really powerful abilities, any armor in the game and the ability to use every single weapon they feel like. I don't know, I really want to play our game soon and see how our fighter feels. He's our only martial, we have a druid who wants to be a bear, paladin and a wicked cool bard. Strength of Many posted:Well.. I'll have to give this a look through. Cainer fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:There's literally no game design reason that sword guy = simple class and magic guy = complex class and not the other way round. The warlock and dragonfire adept from 3.5 are good examples of the simple caster concept, I think. The Martial Adepts, Meldshapers and any Gish are good examples of complex warriors. Nihilarian fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:I agree, that's why I suggested a simple caster class and a complex warrior class. I know, that's why I edited. It just pisses me off that simple caster always comes up as a maybe or an afterthought, and never seems to be brought up by the same people who say that they need the fighter to be a simple class so that there's a simple class available.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Cainer posted:Problem is I don't know how to balance that. I know how not to balance that and that's to repeat a bunch of the mistakes of earlier edition while going "no, this time we'll get it right for sure. You just have to believe in the true feel of D&D and also the GM can fix it, whatever." quote:To me fighters are a class that beat up and survive things that would normally kill most casters. If they had powers as strong to keep up with wizards then what point would there be to being a wizard? So, and I know I'm going to be accused of twisting your words here but this is effectively what you've just written here in a thread on the internet, wizards are pointless unless they're stronger than fighters. That is, the only point to being a wizard is being able to go "yep, better than that guy." This doesn't seem like a particularly good way to approach a cooperative game to me, starting with the assumption that one category of characters has to be better than the other because otherwise what's the point? I really don't get why it's such a hard conceptual hurdle to clear that you could have characters with roughly equal capabilities that are nonetheless distinct enough to answer the question of why you would be one over the other. That's not impossible, there are games out there right now which do so to better effect than Next does. The question of why you would want to be a wizard in such a situation would then be "because you like the idea of being a wizard and want to do wizard-y things." Unfortunately a lot of people seem hung up on the idea that "wizard-y things" equal "better than everyone else's things." edit; part of the issue here too is that things that sound equal on paper aren't always. You point out that the Fighter can use any weapon and armor like that's a big deal but it's not actually, it's not even remotely on the same level as a wizard's bag of tricks. Kai Tave fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Why is this maybe?  But then you'd be playing one of them there dirty animoe games... Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I know how not to balance that and that's to repeat a bunch of the mistakes of earlier edition while going "no, this time we'll get it right for sure. You just have to believe in the true feel of D&D and also the GM can fix it, whatever." Nah you're not twisting my words around, I just don't know how to explain my points well enough. Wizards have their own weakness's and strengths, like fighters should have their own strengths and weakness's. Like wizards having less survivability what with fewer HP and AC. If a fighter gets swarmed by say... gobos, he has a good chance of surviving if he has decent arms and armor. If a wizard gets surrounded, they are usually pretty screwed unless they have the exact correct spells for the situation. I just like classes being better at somethings then others and those other classes better at the things they do then the wizard. Edit; terrible spelling. Cainer fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:edit; part of the issue here too is that things that sound equal on paper aren't always. You point out that the Fighter can use any weapon and armor like that's a big deal but it's not actually, it's not even remotely on the same level as a wizard's bag of tricks. If there's one bit of kit that always gets better press than it deserves, it's the ability to use  heavy armor. Like, yeah, that's something to get excited about compared to the ability to shoot gouts of fire from your hands or make people fall asleep or whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
On further reflection I'm not sure my examples were good at all. The warlock is certainly more simple than a full caster, but not compared to a fighter, and the opposite is true for Martial Adepts. And as much trouble as I had parsing Meldshapers, once I got it it suddenly seemed very simple. So I'm curious: what would you guys want from a simple caster or a complex warrior class? Are Invocation users and Martial Adepts enough, or would you go farther? AlphaDog posted:I know, that's why I edited.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 01:54
|
|