The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 436
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    by a simple choice of spells (and some levels), the mage can be a better rogue than the rogue, and a better fighther than the fighter.
    So don't do that.

    Sure, accidents happen. And then you fix them.

    (If, you know, you care about that kind of thing)

    Quote Originally Posted by moonfly7 View Post
    Everyone vpuld be exactly the same class, or very similare classes, and still play in the party together effectively, and happily, while filling the same roles.
    Agreed. Although… my personality tends to prefer to use that samey character to play "highschool romance drama" while everyone else is playing "tactical basketball simulator", because I… don't like crowds, so to speak.

    Quote Originally Posted by moonfly7 View Post
    So what's all this I here about that dude needing to not pick locks? Or that wizard trading because I was a wizard first. If you have a party balance problem, it's not the class choices, it's the people playing. And you just need to talk it out.
    Two people both come to the game with the expectation of fulfilling the same role. The problem is both that expectation, and the belief in the righteousness of their claim to that role.

    Quote Originally Posted by moonfly7 View Post
    All DND problems can be solved by talking. ALL of them. Every one. Whether it's to the DM or another player. Just be polite, and talk it out
    That's a great attitude to approach the game with. Kudos!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pelle View Post
    Yeah, I know, that's why I said it seems like you imply that. But I do think you come off as thinking that imposing imbalance will lead to more fun, though. And I think that was pointed out to you in another thread; that's only due to correlation, not causality. If people don't mind playing an negatively unbalanced character, they can have fun playing an unbalanced character. Sure, that's fine and self-evident, but lots of people do mind that. The only sane default when starting a game is to expect everyone to want to be balanced, but let people gimp themselves if they so want.

    That character is also why I called it wallflower instead of sidekick, it is a literal wallflower :)
    Lol. Literal wallflower? True that. ;)

    Another thread? Dang. I'm getting too senile for that - I'm lucky if I remember what's going on in *this" thread.

    But… I think I remember this. Because I learned something - that what I enjoy may be the maturity required for imbalance to work, rather than the imbalance itself. Does that sound right? I don't remember the exact initial revelation, because senility, and also because I've been playing with permutations ever since.

    Anyway, while i may value the things that make enjoying imbalance a possibility, and they may also be good ingredients for healthy groups, I think it's fair to say that, as a matter of personal preference, I do enjoy imbalanced parties as their own merit. That said, the BDH party was a *balanced* party, and I enjoyed that, too. So it isn't an exclusive thing; ie, I don't exclusively enjoy unbalanced parties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldan View Post
    Balance is not required for fun. But what I think is required is information. YOu can play an unbalanced game and have fun with it. But everyone should have a general idea of what's going to happen going into it. That's my entire point.
    Agreed. Or, well, actually, "no one should go in with false expectations", which isn't quite the same thing. That is, it's fine going in with no idea how things will turn out, *if that's what you signed up for*.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    One of the key concepts in a lot of RPGs is decision making. This applies most in the tactical and problem solving parts and less to the characterisation element.
    If one player's decisions are more important to the result, that's an imbalance which matters in that scene.
    As long as everyone's decisions in the scene matter, everyone gets to participate. For most groups, it's fine for some players to sit out some scenes and for the "lead" to be shared around.
    But the less meaningful choices a player gets to make, they less they will enjoy the tactical and problem solving elements.

    I notice the "Balance doesn't matter" responses tend to be from people who are getting most fun from the characterisation side of roleplaying. That's also the least system dependent side, so of course it's not an issue to them
    I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!


  3. - Top - End - #93
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    I notice the "Balance doesn't matter" responses tend to be from people who are getting most fun from the characterisation side of roleplaying. That's also the least system dependent side, so of course it's not an issue to them
    That one is a bit tricky.

    If you can only have fun having a mechanical contribution, then had you best have a big mechanical contribution? If you can only have fun from the characterization side of roleplay, then had you best have a big characterization role to play?

    Honestly, my experience says "no".

    In any activity - not just RPGs - so long as my contribution isn't 0, the possibility of my being happy exists. I'm not saying that I will be happy, just that I could be. I got a very small role in a play, I hit the volley ball once, I put a single jigsaw piece together? These are all victories, who cares if others did more?

    Fun and balance are not synonyms, even in real life.

    Heck, one of my fondest tactical memories was finding a way to fail more slowly than my allies won. So it needn't even require *any* success to be fun.

    (EDIT: so, for the record, I'm saying that no balance of any kind, not just mechanical balance, is strictly required for fun. And that no balance of any kind, especially not mechanical balance, is required for fun.)
    Last edited by Quertus; 2019-09-17 at 11:07 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    For me, I'd like there not to be an issue of imbalance, but that's not the same as wanting things to be balanced or wanting imbalance not to exist.

    You can be arbitrarily imbalanced without problems if, for example: the game is cooperative and not antagonistic AND the main difficulties presented by the game are matters of personal choice and direction rather than overcoming barriers.

    If one player is playing a god and another a starved beggar who can barely stand, it's an issue if the game is about 'you need to get to the other side of town' or 'only one may win, fight!'. But (and now this has become a Worm reference) that god character might be jaded and depressed and disconnected from the world and could end up getting direction from discussions with the beggar that end up helping both (until, following Worm, it snaps, the game becomes adversarial, and the god character destroys the multiverse out of pique).

    If the challenge of the game is deciding what you want, both excessively high and low degrees of agency will be more difficult to play than a sweet spot. That sweet spot is individual to each player. So then imbalance can be a virtue rather than an issue.

    Even if the game is about punching kaiju, not all imbalances need be problematic. There are competency bounds (you need to not die too easily from the assumed level of violence, you need to not have a way to trivialize 'kaiju' as a whole, etc). But within those bounds, balance will be an issue primarily from the psychology of the players and what they're seeking out of gaming. Someone who wants a power fantasy or a challenge or to feel useful or just likes their concept all will have different responses to variations in ability. In some cases, even an objectively balanced set of options (mechanically identical) could feel unbalanced due to e.g. variations in player skill, fluff, etc.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    (EDIT: so, for the record, I'm saying that no balance of any kind, not just mechanical balance, is strictly required for fun. And that no balance of any kind, especially not mechanical balance, is required for fun.)
    True enough. But my observation is, the more imbalance there is between characters in meaningful interactions, the more likely those low on meaningful interactions are to disengage and leave the game.

    And different players in different games have different ideas about what a meaningful interaction is - In a game of D&D 4e where each battle takes most of a session and it runs like a tactical board game, and using pre-prepared modules, the game I was in was very weighted toward character's effectiveness. A character who was poorly optimised meant a player who's decisions weren't important and he didn't enjoy the fights. In a previous campaign, same player had (more by accident than design I suspect) hit on an effective character and had more fun.

    So it's not that balance is important to everyone, but I'd say its important to most people in some games at some tables
    I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!


  6. - Top - End - #96
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    So don't do that.

    Sure, accidents happen. And then you fix them.

    (If, you know, you care about that kind of thing)
    So your suggested solution is: Don't play the fighter.

    Yes, that would work, but it begs the question of why is the fighter in the book at all? Or the better question of why wasn't the fighter designed to be on an even footing with the mage. You could create a balanced party by everyone playing the same class - heck, the same character even - but it hardly seems ideal. And .. ignoring the exceptions, no one wants to play the sidekick.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Dec 2018

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    In the “game of heroic fantasy”, many (if not most) players want to play a hero. If you don’t, that’s fine, and pretty much every single RPG I’ve ever played allows you to play a wide variety of characters.

    I have had players who have absolutely been frustrated that their character felt incompetent, and while this can have many causes (bad rolls, low level characters, etc.), at minimum, the fact you chose one base class over another shouldn’t be a handicap.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Theoboldi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Speaking of playing the sidekick, I want to give an example of my own experiences with party imbalance. Much of the conversation so far has focused on more general term and the fighter/wizard asymmetry in particular, and I figure adding a more concrete could help explain the position of those people who think balance is important better.

    Back when I was just startding out roleplaying, I joined a pretty low-level D&D 3.5 game. Our party as I recall was mostly composed of mundane characters, pretty small, and the overall optimization level was pretty low. We used books other than core, but none of us really made any sort of build. We mostly just picked whatever feats sounded good for the kind of character we were playing, without going out of our ways to chose more unusual feats like Skill Focus.

    Now, the character I was playing at the time was of the Swashbuckler class. I had chosen that sort of character because the archetype of a quick, nimble and skillful warrior appealed to me. While I expected to not be able to deal as much damage as the party's barbarian due to the smaller weapon dice that I would have to use and the lack of damage bonus from a good strength score, I still figured that in combat they'd contribute overall equally, since my class did not gain any particular bonuses that would make them more impressive out of combat.

    That was not my experience in play. I soon discovered that despite dealing less damage, I had no better accuracy, no better defenses, nor any particular mobility options to make up for it. In fact, the abilities my class gave me to increase my damage made me split my stats between Dexterity for accuracy and armor, Intelligence for damage, and Constitution for HP, while the Barbarian was able to focus almost entirely on Strength and Constitution. So overall, he ended up being more accurate and just as well defended as I was, with better HP to boot.

    Even worse, my class abilities did not work on enemies who were immune to critical hits. Whenever my party was facing undead, or slimes, or elementals, or golems, or any of the other dozens of common monsters that a D&D party faces, all I had was a d6 worth of damage. Of course, since this was 3.5, I wasn't able to fall back on combat maneuvers like tripping people or disarming them either, as that would have showered me with attacks of opportunity from them.

    Simply put, these two classes were unbalanced in the one niche that they shared. I had gone in expecting that they'd be equals, able to contribute about as much as each other, since nothing about how the classes were presented made it look as though such a disparity was intended. Overall I still had fun with the game, mind, since the GM did his best to tune combats to our abilities and he allowed me to get away with some schemes that were pretty shaky on a rules level. However, my character's unexpected weakness when I had hoped for playing a capable swashbuckler was a constant annoyance for me. It probably was a good thing that the game ended before we got to higher levels, since the impact of my character's dependency on multiple ability scores would have only grown stronger with each Ability Score increase that I would have to split. If things had gotten to the point where my character would have struggled to hit level-appropriate Armor Classes, combat would have completely ceased to be any fun at all.

    On a combat-focused class, mind.

    So yeah, that's my experience with party imbalance. It's really lame to want to play a specific archetype that is offered to you by the game, only to then have to learn the hard way that your character is pretty much worthless at their chosen expertise.
    Always look for white text. Always.
    That's how you do it! Have a cookie!
    Quote Originally Posted by ezekielraiden View Post
    You don't win people over by beating them with facts until they surrender; at best all you've got is a conversion under duress, and at worst you've actively made an enemy of your position.

    You don't convince by proving someone wrong. You convince by showing them a better way to be right. The difference may seem subtle or semantic, but I assure you it matters a lot.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoboldi View Post
    Speaking of playing the sidekick, I want to give an example of my own experiences with party imbalance. Much of the conversation so far has focused on more general term and the fighter/wizard asymmetry in particular, and I figure adding a more concrete could help explain the position of those people who think balance is important better.

    Back when I was just startding out roleplaying, I joined a pretty low-level D&D 3.5 game. Our party as I recall was mostly composed of mundane characters, pretty small, and the overall optimization level was pretty low. We used books other than core, but none of us really made any sort of build. We mostly just picked whatever feats sounded good for the kind of character we were playing, without going out of our ways to chose more unusual feats like Skill Focus.

    Now, the character I was playing at the time was of the Swashbuckler class. I had chosen that sort of character because the archetype of a quick, nimble and skillful warrior appealed to me. While I expected to not be able to deal as much damage as the party's barbarian due to the smaller weapon dice that I would have to use and the lack of damage bonus from a good strength score, I still figured that in combat they'd contribute overall equally, since my class did not gain any particular bonuses that would make them more impressive out of combat.

    That was not my experience in play. I soon discovered that despite dealing less damage, I had no better accuracy, no better defenses, nor any particular mobility options to make up for it. In fact, the abilities my class gave me to increase my damage made me split my stats between Dexterity for accuracy and armor, Intelligence for damage, and Constitution for HP, while the Barbarian was able to focus almost entirely on Strength and Constitution. So overall, he ended up being more accurate and just as well defended as I was, with better HP to boot.

    Even worse, my class abilities did not work on enemies who were immune to critical hits. Whenever my party was facing undead, or slimes, or elementals, or golems, or any of the other dozens of common monsters that a D&D party faces, all I had was a d6 worth of damage. Of course, since this was 3.5, I wasn't able to fall back on combat maneuvers like tripping people or disarming them either, as that would have showered me with attacks of opportunity from them.

    Simply put, these two classes were unbalanced in the one niche that they shared. I had gone in expecting that they'd be equals, able to contribute about as much as each other, since nothing about how the classes were presented made it look as though such a disparity was intended. Overall I still had fun with the game, mind, since the GM did his best to tune combats to our abilities and he allowed me to get away with some schemes that were pretty shaky on a rules level. However, my character's unexpected weakness when I had hoped for playing a capable swashbuckler was a constant annoyance for me. It probably was a good thing that the game ended before we got to higher levels, since the impact of my character's dependency on multiple ability scores would have only grown stronger with each Ability Score increase that I would have to split. If things had gotten to the point where my character would have struggled to hit level-appropriate Armor Classes, combat would have completely ceased to be any fun at all.

    On a combat-focused class, mind.

    So yeah, that's my experience with party imbalance. It's really lame to want to play a specific archetype that is offered to you by the game, only to then have to learn the hard way that your character is pretty much worthless at their chosen expertise.
    This needs to be emphasized, because people focus so much on the caster/non-caster division that they forget all the other forms of imbalance.

    Back when I started out, our party ranger quickly realized that he'd do more damage if he just swung one of his swords with both hands, rather than try to dual-wield. And it wasn't even as bad as it could get, because we didn't have a fighter or barbarian who could outdamage him just by using a greatsword with Power Attack. We can contort logic to explain how it's the player's fault for not somehow fixing it... or admit the rules have a major flaw to them.
    Last edited by Morty; 2019-09-18 at 08:11 AM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    So your suggested solution is: Don't play the fighter.

    Yes, that would work, but it begs the question of why is the fighter in the book at all? Or the better question of why wasn't the fighter designed to be on an even footing with the mage. You could create a balanced party by everyone playing the same class - heck, the same character even - but it hardly seems ideal. And .. ignoring the exceptions, no one wants to play the sidekick.
    No, that's not what I'm saying.

    If the party Fighter is one-action killing an entire room, whereas the party Wizard could have been replaced with a bag of flour, then the party isn't balanced. If that matters to you, *fix it*.

    If you care about X, don't build "not X". If you build "not X" by accident, fix it.

    If you care about Balance, and you build a weak Fighter and a strong Wizard - or a weak Wizard and a strong Fighter - then fix it.

    In 3e, a level 1 Commoner can solo the Tarrasque, while a very epic Wizard can be replaced with a bag of flour. In 3e, you can balance most any chassis to most any balance point. So do that.

    I'm saying that, if you walk into a game with an expectation, then voice that expectation. And, if the group agrees that that expectation is reasonable, a good group will work to make that expectation a reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    This needs to be emphasized, because people focus so much on the caster/non-caster division that they forget all the other forms of imbalance.

    Back when I started out, our party ranger quickly realized that he'd do more damage if he just swung one of his swords with both hands, rather than try to dual-wield. And it wasn't even as bad as it could get, because we didn't have a fighter or barbarian who could outdamage him just by using a greatsword with Power Attack. We can contort logic to explain how it's the player's fault for not somehow fixing it... or admit the rules have a major flaw to them.
    It's the players' fault if they see the problem… and don't fix it.

    Understand, I'm perfectly willing to assign fault at every level, but "the player" is the only one most of us have access to in a given game. So their faults are what we can fix.

    But, yeah, the focus on "caster/non-caster" is a huge impediment to having an actually productive discussion.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Theoboldi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    It's the players' fault if they see the problem… and don't fix it.

    Understand, I'm perfectly willing to assign fault at every level, but "the player" is the only one most of us have access to in a given game. So their faults are what we can fix.

    But, yeah, the focus on "caster/non-caster" is a huge impediment to having an actually productive discussion.
    Quertus, I could not have fixed the problem. The imbalance between dex-focused warriors and strength-focused warriors is baked into the system. At most, all I could have done was abandon the character that I wanted to play, the character that I had played for several sessions at that point, and play a rogue or strength-focused fighter instead.

    Besides, it is not a fault that I wanted to play a concept that the game presented to me as viable. To say that this is somehow my fault when it was one of the first D&D games I ever played and had no clue of the game's internal balance is insane. That's like if you suddenly punched me, and then declared that I was at fault for my resulting pain because I was too slow to defend myself.
    Always look for white text. Always.
    That's how you do it! Have a cookie!
    Quote Originally Posted by ezekielraiden View Post
    You don't win people over by beating them with facts until they surrender; at best all you've got is a conversion under duress, and at worst you've actively made an enemy of your position.

    You don't convince by proving someone wrong. You convince by showing them a better way to be right. The difference may seem subtle or semantic, but I assure you it matters a lot.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    It's the players' fault if they see the problem… and don't fix it.

    Understand, I'm perfectly willing to assign fault at every level, but "the player" is the only one most of us have access to in a given game. So their faults are what we can fix.

    But, yeah, the focus on "caster/non-caster" is a huge impediment to having an actually productive discussion.
    The player's "fault", in this context, is not predicting that the game he was playing for the first time in his life was going to shaft his entire class and the combat style it was foisting on it (it's not like it was his choice to dual wield, he just preferred it to archery). I'm going to go ahead and insist that there's no actual fault on his part at all.

    And your proposed solution is... actually, I'm drawing a blank on how we were supposed to fix it without houserules - as we eventually did, to make it so he could attack with both his weapons using a standard action. I think the campaign ended before we could see how much it helped. But the system gave us no tools whatsoever to address this problem. And doing it ourselves increases effort and reduces enjoyment.
    Last edited by Morty; 2019-09-18 at 09:47 AM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I'm saying that, if you walk into a game with an expectation, then voice that expectation. And, if the group agrees that that expectation is reasonable, a good group will work to make that expectation a reality.



    It's the players' fault if they see the problem… and don't fix it.

    Understand, I'm perfectly willing to assign fault at every level, but "the player" is the only one most of us have access to in a given game. So their faults are what we can fix.
    Just to make sure I understand what you're saying, you're not saying that "the player should fix the problem" as "the player should change what he appreciate in RPG, because we're not gonna home-rule the game under the pretext that it is unbalanced, as unbalance is not a problem", but what you mean is more "the player should fix the problem" as "if the player cares about this unbalance, he should find a reasonable solution to the unbalance, possibly by finding an home-rule or an home-brew version of his class that actually allows him to fully enjoy the archetype he aim to play".

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    And your proposed solution is... actually, I'm drawing a blank on how we were supposed to fix it without houserules - as we eventually did, to make it so he could attack with both his weapons using a standard action. I think the campaign ended before we could see how much it helped. But the system gave us no tools whatsoever to address this problem. And doing it ourselves increases effort and reduces enjoyment.
    I'm guessing house rules, changing priorities, changing playstyles -- all legitimate ways to go about if you find yourself in the situation of discovering that the system you are running and choices you made don't support a your character actually being impactful, but in the end you having to change your actions to accommodate (unadvertised) quirks within the game.

    Which really just highlights that we're having (at least) two discussions -- should parties be balanced, and should game systems be balanced (or at least not being balanced be a legitimate critique thereof). Of this, I am of two minds -- one, the games that are fun are the ones that are fun, not ones that match up to peoples' theoretical rules about what makes a great game. The troll up above suggested that caring about balance was something only 'Hyper Active Selfish Demanding Dominating Competing Action type[s]' cared about, and that's easy to laugh at, but it's definitely the case that lots of people played those editions of D&D noted for being unbalanced (3e of course, but also most all of the TSR-era has gotten legitimate gripes over it) and had absolutely balls with them. On the other hand, to play a straight fighter or monk (or from the above example, Swashbuckler) in 3rd edition, certainly past a certain point, and you really have to have an accommodating group (willing to make house rules, and/or find ways that characters contribute regardless of their mechanics) to feel like a contributing part of the group. Which is galling particularly since, new to that edition, all things were advertised as semi-interchangeable and worth the same (since you can MC between classes, and all require the same XP to level).

    Which really brings my main point -- a system doesn't have to be balanced in all ways and under all circumstances, but if so it should make that somewhat obvious. 5th edition is not balanced, particularly if you do not get the expected number of encounters per rest cycle (and lots of people have been complaining about the expected encounter rate per rest being well outside their normal experiences). However, it pretty well states what its' expectations are, as well as giving sample methods for addressing the situation if your gamestyle does not match them (the gritty rest alternative also doesn't match a lot of peoples' gameplay style, but at least it is an acknowledgment of the issue and a template for how one might make one's own fixes).

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    The player's "fault", in this context, is not predicting that the game he was playing for the first time in his life was going to shaft his entire class and the combat style it was foisting on it
    Well, I'm actually assigning the player(s) several faults:
    1) assuming balance, and predicating their fun on it.
    2) realizing that there wasn't balance, and
    2a) not voicing their concerns
    2b) not fixing the balance

    It is only 2b that I was calling out when I said, "if you don't fix it, it's your fault".

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoboldi View Post
    Quertus, I could not have fixed the problem. The imbalance between dex-focused warriors and strength-focused warriors is baked into the system. At most, all I could have done was abandon the character that I wanted to play, the character that I had played for several sessions at that point, and play a rogue or strength-focused fighter instead.

    Besides, it is not a fault that I wanted to play a concept that the game presented to me as viable. To say that this is somehow my fault when it was one of the first D&D games I ever played and had no clue of the game's internal balance is insane. That's like if you suddenly punched me, and then declared that I was at fault for my resulting pain because I was too slow to defend myself.
    I am (presumably) not able to speak to the you of then; I am speaking to the you of now(ish).

    Anyone reading my posts should know of the existence of resources - such as the Playground - that can help optimize (or deoptimize) a build. So, for anyone reading my post, they could fix it, so, if they do not, that's their fault.

    If the entire group is a bunch of noobs, building in ignorance, with no possibility of external resources to draw upon to help fix problems once they are identified? That's still their fault for not fixing it. They could build the skills, or, failing that, the GM could houserule, homebrew, cater, or McGuffin their way past this problem.

    This is such a trivial problem to solve, with so many possible solutions, that I cannot help but assign fault to groups that care about Balance, but don't fix it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    And your proposed solution is... actually, I'm drawing a blank on how we were supposed to fix it without houserules - as we eventually did, to make it so he could attack with both his weapons using a standard action. I think the campaign ended before we could see how much it helped. But the system gave us no tools whatsoever to address this problem. And doing it ourselves increases effort and reduces enjoyment.
    Um, optimize harder? I mean, if a 1st level Commoner can solo the Tarrasque, what excuse does your… Swashbuckler(?)… have?

    Keep the personality, rebuild the chassis as a Rogue? All the answers I listed above (optimize, houserule, homebrew, cater, McGuffin, etc)? Ask the Playground for help (not that I'd be much help, personally, as I don't really build muggles)? Or even nerfing the other party member(s) would have created balance.

    -----

    EDIT
    Quote Originally Posted by MoiMagnus View Post
    Just to make sure I understand what you're saying, you're not saying that "the player should fix the problem" as "the player should change what he appreciate in RPG, because we're not gonna home-rule the game under the pretext that it is unbalanced, as unbalance is not a problem", but what you mean is more "the player should fix the problem" as "if the player cares about this unbalance, he should find a reasonable solution to the unbalance, possibly by finding an home-rule or an home-brew version of his class that actually allows him to fully enjoy the archetype he aim to play".
    Correct?

    I mean, I personally aim for "optimize RAW materials" over "homebrew" to solve balance problems when possible, but that's a personal preference thing.

    Also, I am also saying that "you" will be happier if you "love the one you're with". That is, the first part of your question - broadening your own personal list of acceptable game types - does increase happiness, too, but that's not what I was discussing at that moment, when I said that "the player should fix the problem". The problem was the imbalance, and it was an imminently fixable problem.

    That imbalance shouldn't (or, at least, needn't) be a problem is, however, integral to this particular thread, even if not to that particular statement.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2019-09-18 at 10:19 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    In 3e, a level 1 Commoner can solo the Tarrasque, while a very epic Wizard can be replaced with a bag of flour. In 3e, you can balance most any chassis to most any balance point. So do that.
    What you're trying to say is that a strong fighter build can be as strong a wizard. That's ... true within an incredibly narrow framework. A fighter can easily do more damage than a wizard - but no fighter build can ever be as versatile as a wizard can. The wizard doesn't even need to be trying.

    Anyways you're dead set on this line of reasoning - so I'll agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    What you're trying to say is that a strong fighter build can be as strong a wizard. That's ... true within an incredibly narrow framework. A fighter can easily do more damage than a wizard - but no fighter build can ever be as versatile as a wizard can. The wizard doesn't even need to be trying.

    Anyways you're dead set on this line of reasoning - so I'll agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
    If the Fighter and the Wizard are not balanced, and the group cares about balance, then one or both players messed up. It's on them to fix their characters to match the group's balance range. And if that requires (the GM stepping in, and) giving the Fighter 1,000,000 gp in custom items, or forces the Wizard to only cast spells from a single school, then do that. If it requires homebrewing a Fighter with d4 HP, and letting the Wizard cast their spells at will, then do that.

    Find a solution that lets everyone play the character that they want within the group's balance range.

    I'm saying I don't care about Balance, but, if you do, there are oh so many ways to accomplish that. I'm not seeing how you can agree to disagree by saying that you care about Balance, but don't care.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kansas City

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    What you're trying to say is that a strong fighter build can be as strong a wizard. That's ... true within an incredibly narrow framework. A fighter can easily do more damage than a wizard - but no fighter build can ever be as versatile as a wizard can. The wizard doesn't even need to be trying.

    Anyways you're dead set on this line of reasoning - so I'll agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
    Its not "a strong fighter can be as strong as a wizard" Its, when playing the fighter, I DON'T CARE if I'm as strong as the wizard. I don't need his versatility. We are a team. he can teleport us around and charm the king and throw fireballs at the crowds of mooks. I still find MY fun by beating down the big bad for 200 hp a round while laughing maniacally.

    I'm having fun. he's have fun. We're having fun. I don't care if I don't have his power level.

    And if you want to play a fighter and you DO CARE that you don't have the power of the wizard, well... that's on you for making a competitive game out of a cooperative game.
    "The monk hits you a shattering blow in the kidneys, luckily this fixes a long standing alignment issue with your spine, gain +10 Move"

    "The evil wizard fireballs you, since the weather has been nasty you are now pleasantly warm, gain immunity from fear effects and cold and necrotic damage "

    "The drow cleric smashes you in the skull with an adamantine mace, this jogs your memory, regain all your used spell slots for the day"

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Ignimortis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallowglass View Post
    Its not "a strong fighter can be as strong as a wizard" Its, when playing the fighter, I DON'T CARE if I'm as strong as the wizard. I don't need his versatility. We are a team. he can teleport us around and charm the king and throw fireballs at the crowds of mooks. I still find MY fun by beating down the big bad for 200 hp a round while laughing maniacally.

    I'm having fun. he's have fun. We're having fun. I don't care if I don't have his power level.

    And if you want to play a fighter and you DO CARE that you don't have the power of the wizard, well... that's on you for making a competitive game out of a cooperative game.
    What do you do when the wizard also beats down the big bad 150, 200 or even 250 hp per round? Or oneshots them with a single spell?
    Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
    Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).
    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kansas City

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ignimortis View Post
    What do you do when the wizard also beats down the big bad 150, 200 or even 250 hp per round? Or oneshots them with a single spell?
    I don't CARE. Why? Because its cooperative, not competitive. I shift my focus to whatever enemies are left.

    Why is that so hard?

    Perhaps, I'm just lucky to have players that don't suck and a DM that runs a game that everyone gets to shine in. But, honestly, I think its just a matter of I have a different perspective than you do.

    I guess, the point I'm trying to make clear is this. The problem isn't balance. The problem is -you are not having fun- And you are putting the blame for that on "because the game isn't balanced" but its possible that that isn't the thing that is at fault here. That its provably possible to have fun despite any balance issues.
    Last edited by Gallowglass; 2019-09-18 at 11:21 AM.
    "The monk hits you a shattering blow in the kidneys, luckily this fixes a long standing alignment issue with your spine, gain +10 Move"

    "The evil wizard fireballs you, since the weather has been nasty you are now pleasantly warm, gain immunity from fear effects and cold and necrotic damage "

    "The drow cleric smashes you in the skull with an adamantine mace, this jogs your memory, regain all your used spell slots for the day"

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallowglass View Post
    I don't CARE. Why? Because its cooperative, not competitive. I shift my focus to whatever enemies are left.
    There are no enemies left. you have done nothing the entire encounter. the wizard then one shots the next encounter, then the encounter after that, then the encounter after that, then does it four times again in a different way, then still solves a problem you can't even big to help with, then still has spells left over to set up camp, an alarm spell to protect that camp and uses prestidigitation on his robe get a minor bloodstain off, then turns to you and goes "wow, you didn't contribute at all, your own fault for not being me." then strolls off to fall asleep as if this is a luxury cruise.

    what then? at what point do you stop accepting Toxic Lion Share Wizard in the name of "cooperation"?
    My Fan Fiction:
    To Catch A Mew
    A Kalos based pokemon fan fic. Now up to Chapter 24!



  22. - Top - End - #112
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Theoboldi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I am (presumably) not able to speak to the you of then; I am speaking to the you of now(ish).

    Anyone reading my posts should know of the existence of resources - such as the Playground - that can help optimize (or deoptimize) a build. So, for anyone reading my post, they could fix it, so, if they do not, that's their fault.

    If the entire group is a bunch of noobs, building in ignorance, with no possibility of external resources to draw upon to help fix problems once they are identified? That's still their fault for not fixing it. They could build the skills, or, failing that, the GM could houserule, homebrew, cater, or McGuffin their way past this problem.

    This is such a trivial problem to solve, with so many possible solutions, that I cannot help but assign fault to groups that care about Balance, but don't fix it.
    So people who are not as wise as we great enlightened masters of D&D deserve to have their time wasted with characters they could not know in advance are not what they are promised to be? They have to waste their time coming up with balance solutions, homebrews, and other things so they can fix a game that was supposed to be fun as written?

    What's with all these assumptions, anyways? Do you think we would have known how to homebrew a satisfying solution back then? Do you know that I would have been happy relying on a McGuffin to contribute, when I wanted to play a fighter that was skillful and capable in his own right? Why do you declare that we did not try to fix it when you were not there?

    I don't understand why you try so hard to discredit me. Why can we not expect better from products that we paid money for just because you didn't have a problem with it yourself? I mean, sure, 3.5 is over and done with by now. But in the future I want to play games where I don't accidentally stumble into such painful imbalances, and then have to carefully figure out a solution with the group, especially since my free time these days is far rarer than back when I was a kid who could play D&D all day long.
    Always look for white text. Always.
    That's how you do it! Have a cookie!
    Quote Originally Posted by ezekielraiden View Post
    You don't win people over by beating them with facts until they surrender; at best all you've got is a conversion under duress, and at worst you've actively made an enemy of your position.

    You don't convince by proving someone wrong. You convince by showing them a better way to be right. The difference may seem subtle or semantic, but I assure you it matters a lot.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kansas City

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    There are no enemies left. you have done nothing the entire encounter. the wizard then one shots the next encounter, then the encounter after that, then the encounter after that, then does it four times again in a different way, then still solves a problem you can't even big to help with, then still has spells left over to set up camp, an alarm spell to protect that camp and uses prestidigitation on his robe get a minor bloodstain off, then turns to you and goes "wow, you didn't contribute at all, your own fault for not being me." then strolls off to fall asleep as if this is a luxury cruise.

    what then? at what point do you stop accepting Toxic Lion Share Wizard in the name of "cooperation"?
    To be blunt, that's a problem that I've never seen actually existing in real life, only in the fevered imaginations of people on this forum seeking to find fault with the game. I'm sure you, and others, will now insist "that exact thing happened to me!" Great. sucks for you. But that's not a balance issue.

    But if that exact scenario actually happened, you aren't "not having fun" because of balance issues inherent in the game. You are "not having fun" because the other player is an ***hole. If both of you were playing fighters, or both of you were playing wizards, you would have the same general problem, slightly different. Because he'd still be an ***hole. If you played D&D 5e or some other non d&d system that you view as being balanced, you'd still have the problem. Because he'd still be an ***hole.

    If you want to make a viable argument, then you can say "D&D 3.e helps to enable ***holes to be bigger ***holes." Sure. I can agree with that. That's as far as I can bend. I guess I can also accept "D&D 3.e, because of its density, can lead to people with system mastery overwhelming people with a more casual interest in the game." I'd say that was true too.

    Neither of those mean the game is broken. But certainly could be improved.

    stop blaming the game just because you play with ***holes.
    Last edited by Gallowglass; 2019-09-18 at 01:58 PM.
    "The monk hits you a shattering blow in the kidneys, luckily this fixes a long standing alignment issue with your spine, gain +10 Move"

    "The evil wizard fireballs you, since the weather has been nasty you are now pleasantly warm, gain immunity from fear effects and cold and necrotic damage "

    "The drow cleric smashes you in the skull with an adamantine mace, this jogs your memory, regain all your used spell slots for the day"

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    I'm guessing house rules, changing priorities, changing playstyles -- all legitimate ways to go about if you find yourself in the situation of discovering that the system you are running and choices you made don't support a your character actually being impactful, but in the end you having to change your actions to accommodate (unadvertised) quirks within the game.

    Which really just highlights that we're having (at least) two discussions -- should parties be balanced, and should game systems be balanced (or at least not being balanced be a legitimate critique thereof). Of this, I am of two minds -- one, the games that are fun are the ones that are fun, not ones that match up to peoples' theoretical rules about what makes a great game. The troll up above suggested that caring about balance was something only 'Hyper Active Selfish Demanding Dominating Competing Action type[s]' cared about, and that's easy to laugh at, but it's definitely the case that lots of people played those editions of D&D noted for being unbalanced (3e of course, but also most all of the TSR-era has gotten legitimate gripes over it) and had absolutely balls with them. On the other hand, to play a straight fighter or monk (or from the above example, Swashbuckler) in 3rd edition, certainly past a certain point, and you really have to have an accommodating group (willing to make house rules, and/or find ways that characters contribute regardless of their mechanics) to feel like a contributing part of the group. Which is galling particularly since, new to that edition, all things were advertised as semi-interchangeable and worth the same (since you can MC between classes, and all require the same XP to level).
    This is why I dislike the term "balance" nowadays. It's loaded and leads to unproductive discussions like this one. Instead, I prefer to talk about working as advertised or respecting the players' time, effort and choices. The 3.5 swashbuckler does none of the above - it doesn't let you play a dashing acrobatic fencer, it wastes your time and effort trying to get it to work properly and punishes you for choosing it. Likewise for a dual-wielding ranger.

    To step outside of D&D for a while: in Vampire: the Requiem, it's not an issue that vampires are more powerful than mortals but less powerful than mages. Those options are not presented equally at any point. What is an issue is that in 1st edition of Requiem, physical Disciplines were weak. Vigor worked more or less okay, if not impressively so. Resilience and Celerity were just plain weak. This a problem of not working as advertised, because they advertised being a horrifically durable and horrifically quick undead predator, respectively. Which is why the second edition of Requiem fixed them. Because when the player spends starting dots of XP on those Disciplines, they deserve to get what the book tells them they will.

    Which really brings my main point -- a system doesn't have to be balanced in all ways and under all circumstances, but if so it should make that somewhat obvious. 5th edition is not balanced, particularly if you do not get the expected number of encounters per rest cycle (and lots of people have been complaining about the expected encounter rate per rest being well outside their normal experiences). However, it pretty well states what its' expectations are, as well as giving sample methods for addressing the situation if your gamestyle does not match them (the gritty rest alternative also doesn't match a lot of peoples' gameplay style, but at least it is an acknowledgment of the issue and a template for how one might make one's own fixes).
    The most important difference is that 5E makes the barrier of effectiveness much lower. To keep the swashbuckler example, in 5E you can just pick the rogue subclass by the same name, or a battlemaster fighter perhaps, take a rapier and go to town. It'll work. A dual-wielding ranger... well, still has problems, but won't be the kind of sad show it is in 3.5. The hoops that people are condemned for not jumping through efficiently enough in this thread don't exist. Or at least aren't as numerous.
    Last edited by Morty; 2019-09-18 at 01:57 PM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    A place near Boulder.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallowglass View Post
    I don't CARE. Why? Because its cooperative, not competitive. I shift my focus to whatever enemies are left.

    Why is that so hard?

    Perhaps, I'm just lucky to have players that don't suck and a DM that runs a game that everyone gets to shine in. But, honestly, I think its just a matter of I have a different perspective than you do.

    I guess, the point I'm trying to make clear is this. The problem isn't balance. The problem is -you are not having fun- And you are putting the blame for that on "because the game isn't balanced" but its possible that that isn't the thing that is at fault here. That its provably possible to have fun despite any balance issues.
    Try looking at is another way:

    There is a large subset of people for whom bakance is directly proportional to fun, and they are not having fun because they are playing an imbalanced game.

    I have played multiple editions of D&D with the same group, and I can attest that imbalance does create drama, high level 3.5 has glaring balance issues that repeatedly cripple people's enjoyment of the game that just dont come up elsewhere.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kansas City

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Try looking at is another way:

    There is a large subset of people for whom bakance is directly proportional to fun, and they are not having fun because they are playing an imbalanced game.

    I have played multiple editions of D&D with the same group, and I can attest that imbalance does create drama, high level 3.5 has glaring balance issues that repeatedly cripple people's enjoyment of the game that just dont come up elsewhere.
    There's just no way for me to respond to this other than pasting in my post that you quoted.

    I guess, the point I'm trying to make clear is this. The problem isn't balance. The problem is -you are not having fun- And you are putting the blame for that on "because the game isn't balanced" but its possible that that isn't the thing that is at fault here. That its provably possible to have fun despite any balance issues.


    At this point, its chicken and egg. You think balance causes the not having fun. I say that you are not having fun and blaming it on balance. I... just don't know how to reconcile this any further. *shrug* I guess agree to disagree?
    "The monk hits you a shattering blow in the kidneys, luckily this fixes a long standing alignment issue with your spine, gain +10 Move"

    "The evil wizard fireballs you, since the weather has been nasty you are now pleasantly warm, gain immunity from fear effects and cold and necrotic damage "

    "The drow cleric smashes you in the skull with an adamantine mace, this jogs your memory, regain all your used spell slots for the day"

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallowglass View Post
    To be blunt, that's a problem that I've never seen actually existing in real life, only in the fevered imaginations of people on this forum seeking to find fault with the game. I'm sure you, and others, will now insist "that exact thing happened to me!" Great. sucks for you. But that's not a balance issue.

    But if that exact scenario actually happened, you aren't "not having fun" because of balance issues inherent in the game. You are "not having fun" because the other player is an ***hole. If both of you were playing fighters, or both of you were playing wizards, you would have the same general problem, slightly different. Because he'd still be an ***hole. If you played D&D 5e or some other non d&d system that you view as being balanced, you'd still have the problem. Because he'd still be an ***hole.



    stop blaming the game just because you play with ***holes.
    Making a lot of assumptions there. I don't play with them nor do I play 3.5. there are more balanced systems out there and what a coincidence, jerks flock to imbalanced systems where their excuses are more accepted and fly longer because the rules aren't clear enough to not allow for powers and shenanigans that are simply common sense to balance.

    I have to yet to see a player who hasn't become a jerk when given godlike power. they always become entitled and talking about special treatment just because their character is so powerful, more than any other character, nor I have yet to see a roleplaying game where godlike power out of proportion to the setting has not caused logical problems or not kill the tension. which is a problem regardless of whether the person is being a jerk. it doesn't matter if the person acts in a way that doesn't the solve the problem immediately, there is the knowledge in the back of my mind that the only reason this godlike being isn't instantly solving the problem is because they are being played as an idiot, and nor do I want them played smart because I'm not interested overjacking the setting to suit their unique high-maintenance needs. tension and uncertainty needs to be kept, there is no point to playing other wise.
    Last edited by Lord Raziere; 2019-09-18 at 02:35 PM.
    My Fan Fiction:
    To Catch A Mew
    A Kalos based pokemon fan fic. Now up to Chapter 24!



  28. - Top - End - #118
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    A place near Boulder.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallowglass View Post
    There's just no way for me to respond to this other than pasting in my post that you quoted.

    I guess, the point I'm trying to make clear is this. The problem isn't balance. The problem is -you are not having fun- And you are putting the blame for that on "because the game isn't balanced" but its possible that that isn't the thing that is at fault here. That its provably possible to have fun despite any balance issues.


    At this point, its chicken and egg. You think balance causes the not having fun. I say that you are not having fun and blaming it on balance. I... just don't know how to reconcile this any further. *shrug* I guess agree to disagree?
    Do you apply this logic to other facets of life?

    Like, if someone watches horror movies and hates them all, and watches lots of comedies and likes them all, maybe that person doesn't like horror movies?

    Why is it so hard for you to accept that there are certain people who fundamentally do not enjoy games because of the imbalances contained within?
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kansas City

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    Making a lot of assumptions there. I don't play with them nor do I play 3.5. ...

    I have to yet to see a player who hasn't become a jerk when given godlike power. they always become entitled and talking about special treatment just because their character is so powerful, more than any other character, nor I have yet to see a roleplaying game where godlike power out of proportion to the setting has not caused logical problems or not kill the tension. which is a problem regardless of whether the person is being a jerk. it doesn't matter if the person acts in a way that doesn't the solve the problem immediately, there is the knowledge in the back of my mind that the only reason this godlike being isn't instantly solving the problem is because they are being played as an idiot, and nor do I want them played smart because I'm not interested overjacking the setting to suit their unique high-maintenance needs. tension and uncertainty needs to be kept, there is no point to playing other wise.
    Okay, you don't like me making "assumptions" (for the record, I wasn't) so....


    I mean, which is it. Do you NOT play D&D 3.5 and *******s or do you have a vast breadth of experience with your "players who become jerks when given godlike powers" that you believe are ubiquitous and plentiful?

    How do you NOT play 3.5, but only play more balanced systems, but still have multiple experiences of these god like ***holes that you claim flock to a system you don't play in?

    "I don't play this game or with these people. But I have seen multiple people act this way (in a game I don't play)"

    You start talking about how you don't play with these people, then talk about how you have multiple personal experiences with it. So which is it?

    Because, i -do- play the game. I have played the game for many many years. with many many groups. And these "god-drunk" ***holes only seem to exist on this forum in theoretical discussions about problems with the game by people like you who claim you don't play the game, don't like the game, but somehow also claim to have these anachronistic deep and plentiful experiences with its functional flaws.

    The TO "god powered" wizard that gets flouted on this forum over and over again... you know what... it seems to exist only on this forum as a TO exercise. I haven't seen someone playing a 20 Wizard anything like this god wizard is supposed to be played.

    Gosh, I sure am lucky! Unlike you, I actually play this version of the game, and haven't had the experience you have while not playing the version of the game, but still finding so many flaws!
    "The monk hits you a shattering blow in the kidneys, luckily this fixes a long standing alignment issue with your spine, gain +10 Move"

    "The evil wizard fireballs you, since the weather has been nasty you are now pleasantly warm, gain immunity from fear effects and cold and necrotic damage "

    "The drow cleric smashes you in the skull with an adamantine mace, this jogs your memory, regain all your used spell slots for the day"

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    GreataxeFighterGuy

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why does the party need to be balanced?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    This is why I dislike the term "balance" nowadays. It's loaded and leads to unproductive discussions like this one. Instead, I prefer to talk about working as advertised or respecting the players' time, effort and choices. The 3.5 swashbuckler does none of the above - it doesn't let you play a dashing acrobatic fencer, it wastes your time and effort trying to get it to work properly and punishes you for choosing it. Likewise for a dual-wielding ranger.

    To step outside of D&D for a while: in Vampire: the Requiem, it's not an issue that vampires are more powerful than mortals but less powerful than mages. Those options are not presented equally at any point. What is an issue is that in 1st edition of Requiem, physical Disciplines were weak. Vigor worked more or less okay, if not impressively so. Resilience and Celerity were just plain weak. This a problem of not working as advertised, because they advertised being a horrifically durable and horrifically quick undead predator, respectively. Which is why the second edition of Requiem fixed them. Because when the player spends starting dots of XP on those Disciplines, they deserve to get what the book tells them they will.
    This here is the key. If somebody's picking up a game for the first time, it's entirely reasonable for that person to expect that the game will give an honest account of itself. I mean, the 3.5 PHB describes the monk as "A martial artist whose unarmed strikes hit fast and hard--a master of exotic powers," but we had to wait for ToB and the swordsage before "a master of exotic powers" could actually be realized. So that's a natural and entirely understandable frustration.

    I'd also like to point out that in my experience, the "balance" issue has been more about players not having interesting options than not contributing mechanically. My wife really likes archers, and she rolled one up (I forget if she went ranger or rogue) the first time we played. But she discovered that in 3.5, what she liked most of all outside of the game was pretty boring in the game. Her friend who's a huge nature nut, on the other hand, played what she liked most--a druid--and had a blast, because there was always a range of things she could choose to do. It just so happens that because of the way the game was designed, the classes that have a lot of options in D&D also tend to be the most powerful ones--but there's no indication of that in the actual documentation for the game itself.
    Last edited by Tajerio; 2019-09-18 at 02:42 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •