Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
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.

Wait do you know what level adjustment ment? Look, level adjustment was how you played those races, Say I wanted to play a Teifling, that race was level adjustment +1. The racial abilities were equal to a class level on top of base race. So you would skip a level or take the next level requirement for that class to reach the new class level.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
To the original questions:

In 5e at least, story and background trumps hard rules in terms of where your character comes from and what kind of training they have. It's left predominately in the hands of you and your DM to decide what works ad makes sense for you. You might play a middle-aged and fairly grizzled former watchman who is striking out on adventure or is dedicating themselves to a greater oath of righteousness now - their history is the explanation for their above-commoner level capabilities and experience. OR, you might be playing a seventeen year old halfling girl who ran away from home to see the world, and has only recently discovered the beginning blooms of the kinds of magical power her music, song and dance can evoke if she puts her heart into it... Your exact amount of experience in an adventuring lifestyle is almost entirely between you and your DM. the game rules give you as et of proficiencies and skills to represent your beginning point as an adventurer, but you can decide with your DM how you came by them, or even if you have access to all of that right away, if you want.

None of this is new to 5th ed. You could play a person with zero experience at anything in any edition if you wanted.

This doesn't change the fact that the game assumes your character has quite a lot of training even before starting his adventuring career. The new Background feature only adds to that assumption by providing even more pre-existing skills (as well as the means by which you explain why you have them).

You can choose to play a smith's apprentice who's never held a weapon before in his life, but he still has the skills of a well trained warrior because you chose Fighter as his class. You can choose to play your halfling Bard who's only just leaving home, but she's still a well trained musician (proficient in three instruments) and already trained in a very specific form of magic. This isn't "background and story trumping hard rules", this is the opposite, this is game mechanics trumping background and story.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Dec 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by fallenj
Wait do you know what level adjustment ment? Look, level adjustment was how you played those races, Say I wanted to play a Teifling, that race was level adjustment +1. The racial abilities were equal to a class level on top of base race. So you would skip a level or take the next level requirement for that class to reach the new class level.

And that extra level was a "monster level," not a proper class's level. Similar to how bloodlines ate up a certain number of levels but weren't training as a cleric or such. The point is that they were still playable in 3.5. Even gold dragons.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Yes. In DnD a first level character is generally assumed to already be fully trained in their class at the very least. Achieving a class level is a big deal and the vast majority of people in the world never do it. Even fighters are extraordinary.

"Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen’s army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters."

From DnD Beyond. At level 1 you're already considered to be a professional soldier or the equivalent to a knight who has spent most of their formative years being trained for war.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
The best way I've heard the D&D level progression put was this way; the power dynamic was designed to change every 5 levels creating games that look something like this:

Levels 1-5: Gritty fantasy
Levels 6-10: Heroic fantasy
Levels 11-15: Wuxia
Levels 16-20: Superheroic

This was said with regards to 3e but, power creep, aside it still seems to be pretty true to 5e.

So even from level 1 you're still head and shoulders above a regular person, this is also expressed when you roll stats, typically you are rolling your stats so that their average is above what the 'average person' gets (i.e. a bonus of -/+ 0)

I think it's Warhammer where you start out with a bunch of level 0 characters and whoever survives the first session is your character at level 1, so just assume your guy is the one who survived to be level 1.

Joined: Jun 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Dexai
You can choose to play a smith's apprentice who's never held a weapon before in his life, but he still has the skills of a well trained warrior because you chose Fighter as his class. You can choose to play your halfling Bard who's only just leaving home, but she's still a well trained musician (proficient in three instruments) and already trained in a very specific form of magic. This isn't "background and story trumping hard rules", this is the opposite, this is game mechanics trumping background and story.

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.

Joined: Dec 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2020
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.

Joined: Sep 2015
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2015
"The D&D game system is flexible, but it’s also meant to be a balanced
set of rules."

Its fun to see the word "balanced" in 3.5.
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.
I played NWN2 and its amazing what you see when looking at the build maker.
I also read something about a PnP build contest were the winner was a gargantuan monstrosity with many classes, sorry I do not remember details but I think it had also many arms.

Well, you could role play this as " I am a (monster race x) on an epic quest to become a demon lord."


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: Dec 2020
B
Banned
Offline
Banned
B
Joined: Dec 2020
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.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Madscientist
"The D&D game system is flexible, but it’s also meant to be a balanced
set of rules."

Its fun to see the word "balanced" in 3.5.
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.
I played NWN2 and its amazing what you see when looking at the build maker.
I also read something about a PnP build contest were the winner was a gargantuan monstrosity with many classes, sorry I do not remember details but I think it had also many arms.

Well, you could role play this as " I am a (monster race x) on an epic quest to become a demon lord."
Best/worst part? The horrid balance was intentional:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081223093330/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142

And this RPGNet thread explains a lot of the problems.


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: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
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.
Because obviously, someone who happened to pick the right class should be able to break the campaign wide open, while someone who picked the "wrong" one should struggle mightily. Imbalance works best when it's within a certain limit (so that at least most well played options are viable and none are game-breaking), kept in check, and easily remedied if things get too out of hand.

Really, fuck overpowered characters in a social game like D&D. Or could you explain how having someone basically do everything in a campaign while everyone else is rendered redundant and sitting on their haunches could at all be considered fun for the non-op characters?


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
B
Banned
Offline
Banned
B
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Because obviously, someone who happened to pick the right class should be able to break the campaign wide open, while someone who picked the "wrong" one should struggle mightily.
Yes, that's the fun of RPG. Picking a weaker class and still dominate in the end is more of a challange and therein lies the fun.
Some people enjoy being OP. Let them. I don't mind mages being ridicolously OP demigods, that's what they are supposed to be.

Originally Posted by zyr1987
Imbalance works best when it's within a certain limit (so that at least most well played options are viable and none are game-breaking), kept in check, and easily remedied if things get too out of hand.
Get out of WHOSE hand? This is not a competitive multiplayer RPG, this is a single player game that can be played as a cooperative multiplayer game.

Originally Posted by zyr1987
Really, fuck overpowered characters in a social game like D&D.
LoL what? As I said this is single player xD

Originally Posted by zyr1987
Or could you explain how having someone basically do everything in a campaign while everyone else is rendered redundant and sitting on their haunches could at all be considered fun for the non-op characters?
You do realize that single-character players exist right? People who don't use companions and such? Yeah. Why should their fun be ruined in the name of balance? Pro tip: it shouldn't be.
Also your philosophy is exactly what leads to all characters being exactly the same apart from some cosmetics. If you want to know where balance leads, look at WoW MoP, where every class could heal themselves and pseudo-tank while dealing good damage. Basically balance always ends up meaning that everyone is the same with cosmetic differences like, oh I don't know, the races in 5th edition already are.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Because obviously, someone who happened to pick the right class should be able to break the campaign wide open, while someone who picked the "wrong" one should struggle mightily.
Yes, that's the fun of RPG. Picking a weaker class and still dominate in the end is more of a challange and therein lies the fun.
Some people enjoy being OP. Let them. I don't mind mages being ridicolously OP demigods, that's what they are supposed to be.

Yeah, no. If they want to be OP, make them mod for OP-ness. And the idea that mages should be OP demigods? Why do you think WOTC nerfed them so heavily in 4 and 5e? Because I'm pretty sure they weren't meant to be that, or people were just finding them unfun as fuck.

Also, struggling to do something as one class while another can do it with just the flick of a wrist, with no way of knowing which is which is not fun in my opinion. It's just stupid game design. Gaming as power fantasy has never appealed to me in the least (well, at least not since I turned thirteen, but at that point things were easing off in my life, so I wanted more challenge).

And show me how a weaker class in 3.5e can dominate in the end when stacked up against a stronger class if both are minmaxed (I know we're talking about 5e but the people who decry balance usually go back to 3.5e as a great system). Here, I'll give you two classes to work with: the Monk (tier five) vs the Druid (tier one) (tier system for 3.5e for convenience)

Quote
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Imbalance works best when it's within a certain limit (so that at least most well played options are viable and none are game-breaking), kept in check, and easily remedied if things get too out of hand.
Get out of WHOSE hand? This is not a competitive multiplayer RPG, this is a single player game that can be played as a cooperative multiplayer game.

Hint: this is a game based on D&D, so balance in D&D should carry over here, as all the people complaining about it not being close enough to D&D can attest (and while D&D 5e isn't perfectly balanced, it is reasonably well balanced based on my reading of online discussions. Well, aside from the ranger which is getting a complete rework here). As to whose hands, easy: the GM's or the groups.

Quote
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Really, fuck overpowered characters in a social game like D&D.
LoL what? As I said this is single player xD

Based on the rules of a multiplayer game. And, near as I can tell, most singleplayer games try to achieve a balance between selectable characters, classes or whatever unless they're specifically marked as easy, hard, or whatever. (not always successfully, but at least we have patching now, so it can get better) It's singleplayer so balance shouldn't matter goes against all game design I have ever seen, and I've been gaming since the early nineties, as well. Balance doesn't need to be perfect here, but it still needs to be thought about. I love this reddit thread discussing the concept.

Quote
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Or could you explain how having someone basically do everything in a campaign while everyone else is rendered redundant and sitting on their haunches could at all be considered fun for the non-op characters?
You do realize that single-character players exist right? People who don't use companions and such? Yeah. Why should their fun be ruined in the name of balance? Pro tip: it shouldn't be.
Also your philosophy is exactly what leads to all characters being exactly the same apart from some cosmetics. If you want to know where balance leads, look at WoW MoP, where every class could heal themselves and pseudo-tank while dealing good damage. Basically balance always ends up meaning that everyone is the same with cosmetic differences like, oh I don't know, the races in 5th edition already are.

That's a criticism I read a lot, but never have seen in practice. And, as long as the game designers know what they're doing, it's entirely possible to have roughly balanced classes that play completely differently (roughly balanced meaning that, while they play differently, they should have roughly the same difficulty in doing x task, like clearing a room full of enemies). I had an expansive post on this idea in the balance thread, actually.


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
B
Banned
Offline
Banned
B
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Why do you think WOTC nerfed them so heavily in 4 and 5e?
Because they adopted the cancerous philosophy of balance.

Originally Posted by zyr1987
not fun in my opinion
We have a topic about people arguing about whether there should or shouldn't be voiced protags, unlimited ammo, etc etc. It's pretty obvious that if you don't want to be OP you shouldn't pick an OP class. These discussion always end up coming to the compromise that we must give the other side the option to satisfy their needs. What you suggest would take the option of being OP or UP from players who want that experience, in the name of some nebulous "balance".

Originally Posted by zyr1987
show me how a weaker class in 3.5e can dominate in the end when stacked up against a stronger class

A literally meaningless question in a single player RPG. You assume there is supposed to be some equality between a hard working wizard and a lazy rogue who always takes the easier path. It's a flawed assumption.

Originally Posted by zyr1987
If they want to be OP, make them mod for OP-ness

If they want balance, make them mod for balance.
Keep in mind I'm also in favor of peopel being able to play the underdog classes.

Originally Posted by zyr1987
balance in D&D should carry over here

Balance should be purged by and large. Classes should have their own independent identity regardless of how they perform compared to each other. A rogue is a rogue regardless of how well it performs vs a wizard. We must do away with the arbitrary limit that classes should only be allowed to exist if they can compete with another class.

Originally Posted by zyr1987
Based on the rules of a multiplayer game

Literally does not matter because the product is going to be single player with the option of co-operative multiplayer. Everyone can decide for themselves what they want to be. FURHTERMORE multiclassing exists for those people who feel they picked a wrong class and don't want to start over.

Originally Posted by zyr1987
most singleplayer games try to achieve a balance between selectable characters

Hence the decline of the gaming industry in the last decade.

Originally Posted by zyr1987
never have seen in practice

Maybe you should play more videogames?

Last edited by Bruh; 06/01/21 03:42 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by VeronicaTash
Originally Posted by fallenj
Wait do you know what level adjustment ment? Look, level adjustment was how you played those races, Say I wanted to play a Teifling, that race was level adjustment +1. The racial abilities were equal to a class level on top of base race. So you would skip a level or take the next level requirement for that class to reach the new class level.

And that extra level was a "monster level," not a proper class's level. Similar to how bloodlines ate up a certain number of levels but weren't training as a cleric or such. The point is that they were still playable in 3.5. Even gold dragons.

It was up to the DM if they allowed whatever race you was shooting for. Those races had "Monster" levels and generally were considered OP compared to base races.

Trying to recall if anyone in our party back when I played the P&P version actually played a monster race.

Took about 5 minutes, we did, my bro played a drow necro and I played a drow artificer.

Last edited by fallenj; 06/01/21 03:20 PM.
Joined: Jul 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Yeah, no. If they want to be OP, make them mod for OP-ness. And the idea that mages should be OP demigods? Why do you think WOTC nerfed them so heavily in 4 and 5e? Because I'm pretty sure they weren't meant to be that, or people were just finding them unfun as fuck.

Also, struggling to do something as one class while another can do it with just the flick of a wrist, with no way of knowing which is which is not fun in my opinion. It's just stupid game design. Gaming as power fantasy has never appealed to me in the least (well, at least not since I turned thirteen, but at that point things were easing off in my life, so I wanted more challenge).
As long as there are many OP options, and the multiclass in 5e allows for that, it is way more fun than everyone being "equal" which equals boring.
If you wanna a good a example, just play Diablo 2. Every class in that game can become OP.

Joined: Dec 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Best/worst part? The horrid balance was intentional:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081223093330/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142

And this RPGNet thread explains a lot of the problems.

And it was made wisely. You want to find a character concept and develop it - if you're going for a tankish fighter, with 18 base strength and low dexterity, it probably isn't wise to take weapon finesse and put your skills into lockpicking, trying to be a jack of all trades. Maybe you shouldn't be stackiing up on both ranged and melee feats. Perhaps your wizard doesn't need to invest in all sorts of melee feats at all - that is what your link is speaking to. Wizards are incredibly weak in lower levels, it actually is balanced to have them powerful at high levels in exchange for that - but if they're doing everything then the DM is designing too small of encounters. But yes - some feats are just a bad idea for a long campaign as opposed to a short one - some feats are a bad idea for a short campaign. Sometimes people good at one thing work on something completely unrelated and get decent at that while losing what they could have been in real life.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Danielbda
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Yeah, no. If they want to be OP, make them mod for OP-ness. And the idea that mages should be OP demigods? Why do you think WOTC nerfed them so heavily in 4 and 5e? Because I'm pretty sure they weren't meant to be that, or people were just finding them unfun as fuck.

Also, struggling to do something as one class while another can do it with just the flick of a wrist, with no way of knowing which is which is not fun in my opinion. It's just stupid game design. Gaming as power fantasy has never appealed to me in the least (well, at least not since I turned thirteen, but at that point things were easing off in my life, so I wanted more challenge).
As long as there are many OP options, and the multiclass in 5e allows for that, it is way more fun than everyone being "equal" which equals boring.

This. Exactly.

Incidentally, I followed the link.

I know the edition wars are over but here goes wink People who think wizards were OP in 3rd ed had DMs who weren't applying the rules as written. Once a wizard starts casting everyone gets a free attack of opportunity -- including the tavern owner who can only swing a pint of ale. Unless the wizard somehow manages to avoid getting hit (and how would they) and have to make concentration check. If they somehow make that then spell could be counter spelled by another mage. Mages pretty quickly learn that casting in combat isn't a great idea and it's better to create wands so you can actually get a spell off. And so the wizard quickly becomes the fantasy version of a gunslinger. And it's hard to level up a 3rd ed wizard -- every wand costs experience points and the rest of the party will soon ask the wizard to create magic swords and the like. So you can look at the spell list and say "wow, these spells would really dominate the late game" but -- unless you have generous DM -- wizards a) have a hard time getting to a level where they can cast those spells b) have a difficult time casting them.

Now the 5 step corrected this some but it was immersion breaking -- so my halfling mage can stretch her suddenly elastic legs through two goblins to make to safety? Of course I'll use it but it doesn't really make any sense . . .

DOS2 actually did this better by making attack of opportunity a feat that one needs to take.

In 5th edition wizards have fewer spell slots but they have a much greater chance of getting a spell to fire.

Anyway, not to bash on 3rd. 3rd was okay but 5th is better.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Bruh
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Why do you think WOTC nerfed them so heavily in 4 and 5e?
Because they adopted the cancerous philosophy of balance.

In your opinion

Quote
Originally Posted by zyr1987
not fun in my opinion
We have a topic about people arguing about whether there should or shouldn't be voiced protags, unlimited ammo, etc etc. It's pretty obvious that if you don't want to be OP you shouldn't pick an OP class. These discussion always end up coming to the compromise that we must give the other side the option to satisfy their needs. What you suggest would take the option of being OP or UP from players who want that experience, in the name of some nebulous "balance".

You know how ridiculous that sounds? Seriously, there is a way to do this already, without sacrificing balance, and it has a name: difficulty levels. You want OP experience? choose easy. You want a UP experience, choose hard. Unbalanced classes should never be substituted for difficulty levels. THAT idea is cancer.

I have never gotten an adequate explanation for why someone should suffer through a ridiculously hard time with their preferred class and playstyle, when one that is uninteresting to them is able to breeze through the game no problem.

Quote
Originally Posted by zyr1987
show me how a weaker class in 3.5e can dominate in the end when stacked up against a stronger class

A literally meaningless question in a single player RPG. You assume there is supposed to be some equality between a hard working wizard and a lazy rogue who always takes the easier path. It's a flawed assumption.

Except, no. Again you treat balance as difficulty levels, and that's nonsensical. You fail to provide any explanation for why unbalanced is better beyond "power fantasy" or "interesting"

Quote
Originally Posted by zyr1987
If they want to be OP, make them mod for OP-ness

If they want balance, make them mod for balance.
Keep in mind I'm also in favor of peopel being able to play the underdog classes.

Too bad for you then that balance is a major concern in game design, so .

[quotd]
Originally Posted by zyr1987
balance in D&D should carry over here

Balance should be purged by and large. Classes should have their own independent identity regardless of how they perform compared to each other. A rogue is a rogue regardless of how well it performs vs a wizard. We must do away with the arbitrary limit that classes should only be allowed to exist if they can compete with another class. [/quote]

HAHAHA, NO.

Why do you assume that classes that perform differently cannot be balanced? Seriously, why? Prove to me that that it cannot.

Quote
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Based on the rules of a multiplayer game

Literally does not matter because the product is going to be single player with the option of co-operative multiplayer. Everyone can decide for themselves what they want to be. FURHTERMORE multiclassing exists for those people who feel they picked a wrong class and don't want to start over.

Mm-hmm. 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?

Quote
Originally Posted by zyr1987
most singleplayer games try to achieve a balance between selectable characters

Hence the decline of the gaming industry in the last decade.

What decline?

Quote
Originally Posted by zyr1987
never have seen in practice

Maybe you should play more videogames?

I play plenty. Maybe you should play more? Or maybe w4e should cut the ad hominems and you actually prove your argument?

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by Danielbda
Originally Posted by zyr1987
Yeah, no. If they want to be OP, make them mod for OP-ness. And the idea that mages should be OP demigods? Why do you think WOTC nerfed them so heavily in 4 and 5e? Because I'm pretty sure they weren't meant to be that, or people were just finding them unfun as fuck.

Also, struggling to do something as one class while another can do it with just the flick of a wrist, with no way of knowing which is which is not fun in my opinion. It's just stupid game design. Gaming as power fantasy has never appealed to me in the least (well, at least not since I turned thirteen, but at that point things were easing off in my life, so I wanted more challenge).
As long as there are many OP options, and the multiclass in 5e allows for that, it is way more fun than everyone being "equal" which equals boring.

This. Exactly.

Incidentally, I followed the link.

I know the edition wars are over but here goes wink People who think wizards were OP in 3rd ed had DMs who weren't applying the rules as written. Once a wizard starts casting everyone gets a free attack of opportunity -- including the tavern owner who can only swing a pint of ale. Unless the wizard somehow manages to avoid getting hit (and how would they) and have to make concentration check. If they somehow make that then spell could be counter spelled by another mage. Mages pretty quickly learn that casting in combat isn't a great idea and it's better to create wands so you can actually get a spell off. And so the wizard quickly becomes the fantasy version of a gunslinger. And it's hard to level up a 3rd ed wizard -- every wand costs experience points and the rest of the party will soon ask the wizard to create magic swords and the like. So you can look at the spell list and say "wow, these spells would really dominate the late game" but -- unless you have generous DM -- wizards a) have a hard time getting to a level where they can cast those spells b) have a difficult time casting them.

Now the 5 step corrected this some but it was immersion breaking -- so my halfling mage can stretch her suddenly elastic legs through two goblins to make to safety? Of course I'll use it but it doesn't really make any sense . . .

DOS2 actually did this better by making attack of opportunity a feat that one needs to take.

In 5th edition wizards have fewer spell slots but they have a much greater chance of getting a spell to fire.

Anyway, not to bash on 3rd. 3rd was okay but 5th is better.

Literally never seen how this is supposed to balance out a wizard who can, with a flick of a finger, put all the enemies to sleep or charm them, or use save or die spells, while fighters (for example) still have to get through a wall of hit points which an extra attack or four can only help so much with, and I've been doing a lot of research.

Also, a question I've had (I read it somewhere else, but . Why should fighters, barbarians, and other strength based classes be limited to Conan-level strength, instead of, say ground based superman, while wizards can go full-on peak Dr. Stephen Strange (read: reality warper), instead of being limited to something like Merlin?


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
B
Banned
Offline
Banned
B
Joined: Dec 2020
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


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?


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


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.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

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