|
I'm thrilled with the generally conscientious suggestions for class and power improvements, but I can’t help but notice the intense focus on combat as benchmark for balance. It’s as though the full measure of a character can only be judged by their ability to destroy, assist or heal. Don’t get me wrong, combat is certainly central to adventure, but so are the challenging dilemmas between combats, the ones that are often creatively solved with tools like…
Familiars
Animal companions (that aren’t beasts of war)
Low power spells
Situational spells
Information gathering
I’m not saying anything new here, but I’d encourage people, before they post some awesome new mechanic, alternate specialist spells, or get rid of ‘weak’ features, to consider for a moment the non-combat arena.
Thanks!
Couldn't agree more.
This is one of the two main reasons (the other being the loss of that D&D flavour, IMO) that I'm not terribly excited about 4e. It seems like everything must have a specific mechanical application and can't be used for "out of the box" solutions to problems.
I really don't want to see Pathfinder go down the same route.
"Must all balance be combat balance?"
Yes. Next question?
"Must all balance be combat balance?"
Yes. Next question?
Agreed.
Agreed."Must all balance be combat balance?"
Yes. Next question?
Thirded.
Absosmur...waitaminute.
No, I strongly agree with the notion of having greater balance. Our gaming group just begun playtesting the Alpha rules, and we saw very quickly, two things for the future releases:
1. Need for better familiars, if possible under OGL. Let Paizo flavor flow and werecabbages unite!
2. Rogues' abilities (roguish talents) seem like they need playtesting in a lot of way- combat included. We had a second player select a rogue, since the first one focused heavily on some tactical combat feats/talents. The second character was more of a skills monkey/thief.
These are just my observations from one session, with more games to come.
Fourthed.Thirded.Agreed."Must all balance be combat balance?"
Yes. Next question?
Fithed.
Fifthed.Fourthed.Thirded.Agreed."Must all balance be combat balance?"
Yes. Next question?
Sixthed.
Combat requires far more balance than the other aspects of the game.
Disagree. If all I want is combat I can play "HackMaster," or better yet get out a deck of cards and play "War" ... or better still find an old Atari and play "Space Invaders," or a computer to play "Doom." D&D can involve a lot of stuff in addition to the combat; that's its strength as a game. I'd really hate to see that gimped.
As far as I'm concerned Combat Balance and Non-Combat Balance aught to be separate, and classes should be balanced in both.
Disagree. If all I want is combat I can play "HackMaster," or better yet get out a deck of cards and play "War" ... or better still find an old Atari and play "Space Invaders," or a computer to play "Doom." D&D can involve a lot of stuff in addition to the combat; that's its strength as a game. I'd really hate to see that gimped.
Really though what Out of Combat stuff needs balance (Other than Diplomacy ?)
|
Disagree. If all I want is combat I can play "HackMaster," or better yet get out a deck of cards and play "War" ... or better still find an old Atari and play "Space Invaders," or a computer to play "Doom." D&D can involve a lot of stuff in addition to the combat; that's its strength as a game. I'd really hate to see that gimped.
Seconded.
|
|
Really though what Out of Combat stuff needs balance (Other than Diplomacy ?)
I don't know about diplomacy, it, like other spells/abilities, is just fine as long as the DM applies some common sense (the application of situational modifiers comes to mind here).
I am against this whole PC race/class 1 must be balanced relative to PC/class race 2. This is what led 4e to the dark side. People didn't like the wizard's dependence on resting and felt they were overpowered and then baddabing we get mechanics where everyone is effectively a wizard with per day abilities (now everyone is a wizard, so the need to rest is across the board and everyone can do something flashy and "cool" every round.) and no one liked the awesome power of clerics (aka CODzilla) and yet they were so maligned that people claimed to never play them because being the party's battery was un-fun. Once again we get "everyone is now a cleric, problem solved". Is 4e balanced? It sounds like it might be, sure. Is this really where we want to take the enhancements to 3.5 though? Let the classes wax and wane depending on the situation, allow the evoker his blasting glory; the iron golem he didn't expect will still need to be dealt with by someone. And in the absence of anything else, their is still the DM (once rightly called the Judge) to put matters aright and keep all players engaged.
|
|
Disagree. If all I want is combat I can play "HackMaster," or better yet get out a deck of cards and play "War" ... or better still find an old Atari and play "Space Invaders," or a computer to play "Doom." D&D can involve a lot of stuff in addition to the combat; that's its strength as a game. I'd really hate to see that gimped.Really though what Out of Combat stuff needs balance (Other than Diplomacy ?)
It's less an issue of balancing out-of-combat options, and more about peoples' eagerness to cut existing options to make room for more combat options. I can't count the number of times I've seen familiars, animal companions, paladin mounts, touch spells and long-casting time spells on the chopping block to make room for some new tactical option.
I'm just concerned this new 'balance' will eat the old fluff - the fun fluff - whole.
And I dare say you're all wrong - it always seemed one of the most insulting things about the fighter was its uselessness out of combat, more than its relative suckiness in it. To be precise, both in and out of combat, all classes should be equally useful read: "preferrable", not "able to help carrying stuff" or anything else a commoner could do about as well).Fifthed.Fourthed.Thirded.Agreed."Must all balance be combat balance?"
Yes. Next question?
Sixthed.
Combat requires far more balance than the other aspects of the game.
Heh, the fighter is useless in combat too. But, considering that everyone now gets at least seven skills by 10th level, everyone has an out of combat role. Issue resolved.
Now we just need to give him an in combat role.
"Must all balance be combat balance?"
Yes. Next question?
Seriously, K? Aren't you and Frank usually trying for some kind of out of combat balance also? or do you guys just try and create out of com bat options for everyone?
Really though what Out of Combat stuff needs balance (Other than Diplomacy ?)I don't know about diplomacy, it, like other spells/abilities, is just fine as long as the DM applies some common sense (the application of situational modifiers comes to mind here).
I am against this whole PC race/class 1 must be balanced relative to PC/class race 2. This is what led 4e to the dark side. People didn't like the wizard's dependence on resting and felt they were overpowered and then baddabing we get mechanics where everyone is effectively a wizard with per day abilities (now everyone is a wizard, so the need to rest is across the board and everyone can do something flashy and "cool" every round.) and no one liked the awesome power of clerics (aka CODzilla) and yet they were so maligned that people claimed to never play them because being the party's battery was un-fun. Once again we get "everyone is now a cleric, problem solved". Is 4e balanced? It sounds like it might be, sure. Is this really where we want to take the enhancements to 3.5 though? Let the classes wax and wane depending on the situation, allow the evoker his blasting glory; the iron golem he didn't expect will still need to be dealt with by someone. And in the absence of anything else, their is still the DM (once rightly called the Judge) to put matters aright and keep all players engaged.
Sorry Lich-Loved, your fallacy doesn't apply to diplomacy either. you apparently have never seen "diplomancer" builds or what they can do(like get entire villiages up to the "Fanatical" attitude, at least.)
Seriously, K? Aren't you and Frank usually trying for some kind of out of combat balance also? or do you guys just try and create out of com bat options for everyone?"Must all balance be combat balance?"
Yes. Next question?
We do. Our goal usually is "fix the easy parts first", and thats usually combat because its so easy to playtest. Its also the least susceptible to DM intervention, so addressing it first also makes sense.
|
Disagree. If all I want is combat I can play "HackMaster," or better yet get out a deck of cards and play "War" ... or better still find an old Atari and play "Space Invaders," or a computer to play "Doom." D&D can involve a lot of stuff in addition to the combat; that's its strength as a game. I'd really hate to see that gimped.
Since combat takes a very large chunk of game time I see balance between the classes as essential. That does not mean that combat is everything but in terms of mechanics combat and magic (which is mostly for combat) is huge.
Out of combat stuff comes mostly through role playing and a few spells and skills. I do not see that as requiring any kind of balance.
|
|
Combat requires far more balance than the other aspects of the game.And I dare say you're all wrong - it always seemed one of the most insulting things about the fighter was its uselessness out of combat, more than its relative suckiness in it. To be precise, both in and out of combat, all classes should be equally useful read: "preferrable", not "able to help carrying stuff" or anything else a commoner could do about as well).
To me - this is where the GM comes in. Your fighter can have a good story hook like a critical connection to an important NPC or some organization.
|
edit: Agree with the original poster. Some of the greatest problems with playability of the PHB fighting classes at mid to epic levels, for example, are their lack of special movement and resistances to environmental conditions which make them unable to solve common problems that are not necessarily combat-related.
Fifthed.Fourthed.Thirded.Agreed."Must all balance be combat balance?"
Yes. Next question?
Sixthed.
Combat requires far more balance than the other aspects of the game.
There has to be a benchmark and in D&D it is defeating monsters and taking their stuff. I do not mind playing politically focused games or problem solving games, but in D&D combat will predominantly be the means of power acquisition for most players. Sure maybe it only takes up 10% of your gaming time with role playing taking up the other 90%, but I am not sure how you balance role playing.
To that end, one of the differences between 2nd and 3rd that I've been thinking about recently is XP rewards. in 2nd Ed., you got an XP reward for using one of your class abilities, Thieving Skills for thieves and bards, spells wizards and clerics, killin' thangs for fighters and other warriors. Instead of calibrating he whole game to the characters' ability to Kill Thangs, 2nd Ed. calibrated the to whatever your character is good at. Makes more sense, don't it?
I guess you are talking about the completely optional rule for "Individual Experience Awards" on page 48 in the 2E DMG? Yeah, that one was damn nice...no idea how often you saw it used, but I remember it wasn't that often at all. Still, it was a nice idea. :)
|
|
I guess you are talking about the completely optional rule for "Individual Experience Awards" on page 48 in the 2E DMG? Yeah, that one was damn nice...no idea how often you saw it used, but I remember it wasn't that often at all. Still, it was a nice idea. :)
To that end, one of the differences between 2nd and 3rd that I've been thinking about recently is XP rewards. in 2nd Ed., you got an XP reward for using one of your class abilities, Thieving Skills for thieves and bards, spells wizards and clerics, killin' thangs for fighters and other warriors. Instead of calibrating he whole game to the characters' ability to Kill Thangs, 2nd Ed. calibrated the to whatever your character is good at. Makes more sense, don't it?
That's how I've alwats done it, and still do (2e, 3e, 3.5, 3.P).
If the party sneak past the monsters to get the "crystal of world saving" they'll get the same XP as if they mashed them to a pulp. If the players manipulate the political system to get the "iron crown of doohickey" they'll get the same XP as if they snuck in, killed some guards and stole it.
I also give bonus XP for doing cool things (swinging on chandeliers, helping little old ladies across the road, drinking the hagfish water, etc.)
Fifthed.Fourthed.Thirded.Agreed."Must all balance be combat balance?"
Yes. Next question?
Sixthed.
Combat requires far more balance than the other aspects of the game.
Seventhed