Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 79
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 79
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by zyr1987
In your opinion
I'm going to beat you with this lol.


Originally Posted by zyr1987
You know how ridiculous that sounds?
In your opinion

Originally Posted by zyr1987
Unbalanced classes should never be substituted for difficulty levels
In your opinion

Originally Posted by zyr1987
You fail to provide any explanation
In your opinion


Originally Posted by zyr1987
HAHAHA, NO.
In your opinion


Okay, so you got nothing, and you're just going to beat me over the head with the same phrase rather than honestly discuss. Good to know.

As a side note, I mainly said "in your opinion" because part of the reason you're on thin ice with the mods here (one of them said you had recieved your last warning in another thread, so tread carefully) is because you repeatedly treat your own opinion as fact. There's a reason I either cite a source for any claims I make or state that it's my opinion, much of the time. Unless I state that it's a fact or offer evidence, it's best assumed that it is MY OPINION, so just saying "in your opinion" repeatedly adds absolutely nothing but heat to the conversation. Also, How else was I supposed to respond to a contextless, meaningless quote as "balance is cancer" without any explanation?

Quote
Originally Posted by zyr1987
And why should one person who happens to pick the right class breeze through the game without breaking a sweat, just by virtue of picking the right class?
Why should he not? What injustice did he commit by enjoying the game according to his own taste?

Quote
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Or maybe w4e should cut the ad hominems and you actually prove your argument?
I didn't employ a single one wink
Also what argument? You are jsut asserting your opinions as facts, that doesn't rise to the level of an argument, I'm just stating you're wrong.

How about you answer how it's wrong to pick a "weak" class in a game with multiclassing? You literally have to go out of your way to end up weak. Like making a barbarian worth 18 INT or something hilarious like that.
I have never asserted my opinions as fact, unlike you, but nice try. Anyway, I'm going to quote a long Reddit post here, bolding the most relevant parts that goes into detail about why this line of argument is unpopular (seriously, I tried googling to find opinions that balance is bad and couldn't find ONE).

Originally Posted by "Reddit poster"
Let me tell you about single player balance.

Balance starts at the difficulty settings. Risk of Rain has 3 settings, lets call them easy, normal and hard. The settings are used by the player to balance the game. Difficulty settings are how devs adapt the game to player experience/skill. It's impossible to know how many times the player has played your game, so you give him a way to tell you so you can change the experience to his taste. This is similar to game+. A bad game lacks such adaptability and is a poorer experience than it could be when you replay it. RoR provides not only difficulty settings but also unlockable artifacts that alter the gameplay adding replayability by changing the gameplay, that and the hard difficulty.

Scaling, as you progress through a playthrough your character grows stronger or more adaptable(in most games). The game has to balance this by giving your character greater challenges. A bad game will either make you grind or will not compensate enough for your characters strength/player skill, making playing the game lack tension. This is very subjective as peoples skill vary and opinions on what grinding is clash. So I'll just say a balance between keeping the thrill of gameplay , not crushing the player with enemies with crazy stats and advancing the story has to be kept.

The last aspect of balance is choices. When you give the player options in gameplay as well as story it is always good to make them think. Because easy choices are like easy gameplay - boring. When you present the player with a new gun, a new ability or a new love interest you have to make it different but not outright better than what he has, unless you what him to switch to it and forget whatever he had before. When you give the player several classes to choose from you have to make sure his experience as far as difficulty goes is the same. If you don't you end up with "easy mode classes". This all serves to immerse the player and make him not look at numbers, but to look at what he/his character prefers.

In the end balance is about the player having a good experience with the game, one were the gameplay is proportionally hard to the fighting the character does. If you intend to make the player feel powerful, like valve did at the end of HL2 you can forget about balance for those levels(or think about it in a different frame). Masochistic games are also a genre that throws balance out the window.

To answer OPs question, balance is tool for crafting the players experience, ergo it is important for making a game good.

I would love an explanation about how he is wrong


Quote
Originally Posted by zyr1987
What decline?
Now it's my turn to laugh lol.

Okay, prove to all of us that gaming is in decline, and separately prove that it's for the reasons you describe.


Lover of non-haughty elves and non-smutty lesbian romance
"1404. I will not spoil the adventure's mandatory ambush by using the cheesy tactic of a "scout"." - From "Things Mr. Welch is no longer allowed to do in a (tabletop) RPG"
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 248
B
Banned
Offline
Banned
B
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Okay, so you got nothing

You are the one who got nothing, because you are the one who claimed that my opinions are just my opinions and my entire post was about pointing out how the same is true for you.
But somehow it's now my job to bring arguments, because your opinions are facts, and anyone else's are just opinions. Wrong.

Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 95
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Okay, so you got nothing

You are the one who got nothing, because you are the one who claimed that my opinions are just my opinions and my entire post was about pointing out how the same is true for you.
But somehow it's now my job to bring arguments, because your opinions are facts, and anyone else's are just opinions. Wrong.
*facepalms* scintilating and amazing discussion over here, fellas.


I honestly hope you have a most marvelous day!
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 248
B
Banned
Offline
Banned
B
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by DuskHorseman
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Okay, so you got nothing

You are the one who got nothing, because you are the one who claimed that my opinions are just my opinions and my entire post was about pointing out how the same is true for you.
But somehow it's now my job to bring arguments, because your opinions are facts, and anyone else's are just opinions. Wrong.
*facepalms* scintilating and amazing discussion over here, fellas.

This is what you get once balance is introduced. Meaninglessness.

Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 95
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by DuskHorseman
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Okay, so you got nothing

You are the one who got nothing, because you are the one who claimed that my opinions are just my opinions and my entire post was about pointing out how the same is true for you.
But somehow it's now my job to bring arguments, because your opinions are facts, and anyone else's are just opinions. Wrong.
*facepalms* scintilating and amazing discussion over here, fellas.

This is what you get once balance is introduced. Meaninglessness.
Mate, you're acting like a bit of a wad. I honestly don't know what to say other than that.


I honestly hope you have a most marvelous day!
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 248
B
Banned
Offline
Banned
B
Joined: Dec 2020
Posts: 248
Ok? That doesn't change the fact that balance is a terrible idea to base a game around.

Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 95
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by Bruh
Ok? That doesn't change the fact that balance is a terrible idea to base a game around.
I figure we are going to have to agree to disagree. Have a good one.


I honestly hope you have a most marvelous day!
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 1,056
Moderator
Online Content
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 1,056
This conversation is not getting anywhere in its current form.

Please bring it back to the topic of the thread and discuss it civilly.

Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 87
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by Madscientist
When we create a char we start as lv1 char as one of the classes.

Does the game assume we had months or years of training before becoming a lv1 char?

A lv1 fighter is profient with martial weapons and heavy armor, a mage can read magic scrolls and so on. I guess it takes some time and effort to learn this and the average farmer or merchant will never learn this.
Maybe with the exception of sorcerers (who have literally magic in their blood) does the game assume you had a trainer, you were trained in a temple or something similar and does your relationship to that trainer (in a broader sense) play an important role in the game?

This question is more about DnD in general, not specific to this game.

It's usually assumed you've been trained, and some things (like a fighter reader scrolls) is partially rules and partially the dm (larian in this case) allowed leeway for fighters that might have a history with magic

The thing you 'need' to understand is the levels themselves (and by extension, increments) are abstractions. In Baldur's Gate III's case it's very deliberately vague because with post above with Mr. Mercer's video tries to explain, you can sit down and think of a backstory and then cross reference it with the DM, who can then go "No, X won't make sense in the campaign."
To return to the scroll, Tav could be a (body)guard in an enviroment with lots of magic, such as a mage school. They might not have any experience with scrolls at all. They might have been an adventurer for a while and learned-on-the-job. The game can't sit you down and go through every possible solution (and from my memories on Baldur's Gate I+II, it meant scrolls were basically 'free casts' for the mages only)
This abstraction also applies to levels: you don't suddenly multiclass from level 1 fighter to a level 1 fighter+level 1 thief and instantly get all the knowledge. Tav's been practicing in camp on lockpicking (perhaps with Asterion's help?). Shadowheart's been giving him tips on how to sneak around, ect. Going into that thief level is the culmination of all the practice, to the point Tav can reliably do those things without supervision.

I hope that explanation's made sense and helps

Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 596
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 596
My own first gut reaction would be to say characters would need proficiency in Arcana to cast from scrolls not of their spellist, or maybe a feat (or Background feature) representing training.

But everybody being able to read scrolls is one of those concessions I'd just tolerate because it was a game and it can't be handled as flexibly and intuitively as in a real game.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 931
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 931
Its a bug that every class can use any scroll and that mages can learn any spell from a scroll.
I hope they fix it in the next patch.

In my original post I did not say that fighters can read scrolls.
I said fighters are profient with martial weapons and heavy armor and mages can read scrolls.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 95
B
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
B
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Originally Posted by Niara
What I mean is, if your background and story doesn't agree with what the rules say you should have, then generally speaking, the philosophy of 5e design (as it's discussed in the handbook and the dmg for setting up the world, running the game and characterisation) is to allow the background and story to trump the rules. They recommend DMs and players lean into their personal story more heavily and agree on alterations that suit; my bard, for example, doesn't have full control over her magical capabilities, or a good understanding of them yet; I've got the mechanics in the background, but the in-game reality is that I don't have on-demand access to some of that stuff yet, even though by the written rules I should, and sometimes it happens by accident in stresfull situations.

That has been around for the longest time - it's a base rule. In fact, 3.5 had so many alternate systems to allow people to build a game that allowed them the freedom to play they way they wanted. If you want to make your elf proficient with a battle axe instead of a long sword - you merely needed to explain why.

Originally Posted by 3.5e Dungeon Master's Guide
Altering the Way Things Work
Every rule in the Player’s Handbook was written for a reason. That
doesn’t mean you can’t change some rules for your own game. Perhaps
your players don’t like the way initiative is determined, or
you find that the rules for learning new spells are too limiting.
Rules that you change for your own game are called house rules.
Given the creativity of gamers, almost every campaign will, in
time, develop its own house rules.
The ability to use the mechanics as you wish is paramount to
the way roleplaying games work—providing a framework for you
and the players to create a campaign. Still, changing the way the
game does something shouldn’t be taken lightly. If the Player’s
Handbook presents the rules, then throughout the Dungeon Master’s
Guide you will find explanations for why those rules are the way
they are. Read these explanations carefully, and realize the implications
for making changes.
Consider the following questions when you want to change
a rule.
• Why am I changing this rule?
• Am I clear on how the rule that I’m going to change really
works?
• Have I considered why the rule existed as it did in the first
place?
• How will the change impact other rules or situations?
• Will the change favor one class, race, skill, or feat more than the
others?
• Overall, is this change going to make more players happy or
unhappy? (If the answer is “happy,” make sure the change isn’t
unbalancing. If the answer is “unhappy,” make sure the change
is worth it.)
Often, players want to help redesign rules. This can be okay,
since the game exists for the enjoyment of all its participants,
and creative players can often find ways to fine-tune a rule. Be
receptive to player concerns about game mechanics. At the
same time, however, be wary of players who (whether selfishly
or innocently) want to change the rules for their own benefit.
The D&D game system is flexible, but it’s also meant to be a balanced
set of rules. Players may express a desire to have the rules
always work in their favor, but the reality is that if there were no
challenges for the characters, the game would quickly grow
dull. Resist the temptation to change the rules just to please
your players. Make sure that a change genuinely improves your
campaign for everybody.

However, whereas previous versions were much more open about what fit into different categories, 5e went hard to narrow it down and reduce everyone to stereotypes - that is where there was change. Neutral and evil clerics used to be able to rebuke dead instead of turning them - that is taken away and all clerics act like good clerics, even if they worship an evil deity. The storytelling focus with 5e comes from having FEWER rules and fewer calculations that free up players to focus on telling the story instead of working on character sheets. 3.5e was too complex for some and 4e was just a hack and slash fiasco that few cared for - 5e went simple everywhere to make the game go faster. The result, however, was stereotyping and constraining character builds.


Yes that pretty much nails the point exactly

Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 140
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Originally Posted by fallenj
This took a while to find, but in a previous thread, I went through the 5e races that used to be monsters in 3.5

Monster Races

There were several books that covered making those monster races playable - including a book dedicated to just generally telling you how to do it so you could play as whatever.

It should be noted that Savage Species was among the worst D&D supplements made, as it was designed specifically with the intent of discouraging its use by overly punitive Level Adjustments. "Here's a book to play monsters, but since we don't want you playing monsters, they will all suck".

Then again, the same thing could be said of anything not a caster in that garbage edition.

Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 140
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by Madscientist
There are some totally OP class combinations ( most of them make no sense RP wise ) while it is very easy to make a totally useless char.
And that's a good thing. Fuck balance. I want some classes to be more powerful then other classes. I want some classes to be weaker. This is a natural result of having more options and it's a good thing.

That's what levels are for. If you want YOUR fighter to be a wand caddy, that's great, simply don't level him up. Sadly we only got one edition that treated martial characters with any degree of respect.

Last edited by Bossk_Hogg; 15/01/21 07:50 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 111
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 111
No one
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Yep - in fact the game also includes varied starting ages. From 3.5e, on page 109 of the Player's handbook, is a list of starting ages based on race and class. It doesn't translate well here from a copy and paste method, but humans have a base starting age of 15. Barbarians, rogues, and sorcerors add 1d4 years to get to level 1; bards, fighters, paladins, and rangers add 1d6 years; clerics, druids, monks, and wizards add 2d6 years - this represents their training in their roles. The DM Guide then adds classes not meant for player characters since they aren't fighting classes or are nerfed: adepts are tribal societies' versions of wizards and clerics, aristocrats are your spoiled nobles and specialize in educated skills, commoners are your regular Joe Peasant who goes around toiling, and experts are your craftsmen who have a bunch of skill points in crafting skills and such. Like everything else, this isn't explicitly forbidden for player characters - but they probably don't want to be the blacksmith out to find the kid napped by kobolds and so the classes aren't meant for them - but meant for fighting mobs and the like. Just watch out for the +3 pitchfork of magic missiles.

That's 3.5 anyway and I'm not sure how much 5e dumbed it down, but the basic concept would be unchanged.


No one cares about 3.5

Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 144
T
member
Offline
member
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 144
Fun > Balance.

However, you need to hit a certain pre-requisite level of balance in order to have fun, even in a single player game.

At a certain level of unbalanced, you're basically eliminating player options, because one class or path is simply far too optimal. Imagine if BG3 only had the Wizard Class (as is) + several variations of the Commoner class - you wouldn't want to play any of the commoner classes, and you'd likely get very bored of the Wizard class quickly (just look at how we're basically sick of the classes in EA already).

On the flip side, you never want to be too balanced, where choices simply become superficial (i.e. Class A and Class B both do 5 damage - except one shoots red beams and the other blue). Any system with meaningful choices will effectively have some form of optimization and hierarchy. That's why I'm usually lenient on RPGs having easy late-games - because it's a sign that builds and character choices matter (since they have to balance towards the mean).

In practice - 5E Wish Spell? Terrible. It's almost a blank cheque to do anything and is game-breaking. 5E Meteor Swarm? A bit overtuned in terms of damage (250% higher than level 8 Horrid Wilting), but thematically great, fulfills a concept, and doesn't make other classes obselete (hence deleting options) - that's good OPness.

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,370
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,370
Stop taking this to its extremes.

Balancemen is wrong. So is monte cook.

Yes a PoE like situation wehre balance saps the fun out of a product is awfull. Howver 3.5 caster dominance is also complete garbage and most of you that played BG1 and 2 havent actually seen the worst of it

Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 596
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 596
It is known.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 302
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 302
Originally Posted by Sordak
Stop taking this to its extremes.

Balancemen is wrong. So is monte cook.

Yes a PoE like situation wehre balance saps the fun out of a product is awfull. Howver 3.5 caster dominance is also complete garbage and most of you that played BG1 and 2 havent actually seen the worst of it
PoE 2 allows for many OP multiclass options. That is the optimal case and not one class being stricly stronger than the others as some people here are thinking.

So does Kingmaker, where casters are actually pretty weak compared to martials.

Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 325
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by T2aV
No one
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Yep - in fact the game also includes varied starting ages. From 3.5e, on page 109 of the Player's handbook, is a list of starting ages based on race and class. It doesn't translate well here from a copy and paste method, but humans have a base starting age of 15. Barbarians, rogues, and sorcerors add 1d4 years to get to level 1; bards, fighters, paladins, and rangers add 1d6 years; clerics, druids, monks, and wizards add 2d6 years - this represents their training in their roles. The DM Guide then adds classes not meant for player characters since they aren't fighting classes or are nerfed: adepts are tribal societies' versions of wizards and clerics, aristocrats are your spoiled nobles and specialize in educated skills, commoners are your regular Joe Peasant who goes around toiling, and experts are your craftsmen who have a bunch of skill points in crafting skills and such. Like everything else, this isn't explicitly forbidden for player characters - but they probably don't want to be the blacksmith out to find the kid napped by kobolds and so the classes aren't meant for them - but meant for fighting mobs and the like. Just watch out for the +3 pitchfork of magic missiles.

That's 3.5 anyway and I'm not sure how much 5e dumbed it down, but the basic concept would be unchanged.


No one cares about 3.5

Originally Posted by Madscientist
This question is more about DnD in general, not specific to this game.

3.5 is relevant to the OP topic and generally this answered the question and I do.

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5