posted
Oh, by the way: is Dog really a viable party member? For a while I used him in place of Alistar but I seemed to do worse. I did the first fight in Redcliffe with him instead of Morrigan and I guess I did okay but the fight felt pretty easy to me period.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Does anyone else have a really hard time switching out party members after playing for a while. I get a few people I like early on in the game, get them leveled and outfitted how I like them, and then I just can't bring myself to swap them out for someone else. I keep sending prospective party members to camp to rot. I seem to have this problem with every party-based RPG that I play.
Yeah, though I did wind up switching a couple out anyways. At the moment, my party is Alistair, Wynne, and Zevran, with my character being an arcane warrior. So far, it's been a pretty good mix for me.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Archery's not bad, but you need to have real tanks drawing aggro for it to be viable. I find that archers do okay if they're also able to use poisons and bombs. It's probably better to go with the dual-wield rogue for DPS, except that I hear daggers are currently slightly broken on the PC version (i.e. DEX doesn't contribute to damage like it should.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Archery's not bad, but you need to have real tanks drawing aggro for it to be viable. I find that archers do okay if they're also able to use poisons and bombs. It's probably better to go with the dual-wield rogue for DPS, except that I hear daggers are currently slightly broken on the PC version (i.e. DEX doesn't contribute to damage like it should.)
You realize that in a PC game when discussing balance, saying something is "broken" usually means it's over powered right? Gimped works better for what you are trying to say. There should be words other than Gimped but for some reason they are all escaping me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
nerfed?
There should never be balance between a mage and a mundane. EVER except the X^2 variant of them being squishy in the beginning.
IP: Logged |
quote:There should never be balance between a mage and a mundane. EVER except the X^2 variant of them being squishy in the beginning.
Pft, nonsense. I realize arguing anything other than, "OMG wizards are TEH AWESOME!" with you is doomed to failure, but there are plenty of perfectly plausible, enjoyable systems where mundane and arcane are balanced-for example systems which involve mages needing to take actual time to cast spells, even the ones that root an enemy solid, and being able to be actually interrupted by damage, as opposed to an easily-dealt-with chance of interruption.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Nerfed" implies that it is something that has been done after the fact, to deliberately power down some class feature. "Gimped" is what you're looking for.
In my case, however, despite how the MMOers have mangled the language, I specifically meant "broken," in the sense that the daggers, which were supposed to be coded so that DEX added to damage, are not behaving that way. I suppose, if I were talking to a twelve-year-old who'd only learned English from WoW, I'd say "bugged" instead.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:There should never be balance between a mage and a mundane. EVER except the X^2 variant of them being squishy in the beginning.
Pft, nonsense. I realize arguing anything other than, "OMG wizards are TEH AWESOME!" with you is doomed to failure, but there are plenty of perfectly plausible, enjoyable systems where mundane and arcane are balanced-for example systems which involve mages needing to take actual time to cast spells, even the ones that root an enemy solid, and being able to be actually interrupted by damage, as opposed to an easily-dealt-with chance of interruption.
There can be systems where both classes can be fun to play but never should there ever be a system where going head to head should there be a situation where the fighter has a 50/50 chance of beating the wizard/mage if the mage is prepared for it at higher levels.
IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, the term "Broken" comes from Magic: The Gathering. It predates MMOs. It means something is so powerful that it breaks the game. Second of all, I think BlackBlade's (I think you may have assumed it was Blayne's) comment wasn't intended to be critical so much as informative. We knew what you meant, but right now, you ARE discussing a game with other gamers, and in that context I think it makes sense to at least be aware of the lexicon that has accumulated around gaming culture. Comparisons to 12 year olds are unnecessary.
As for mages: I'm a bit torn on this. I do think it's fine for a game to enforce game balance for the sake of game balance because that's ultimately what matters. (Or rather, "Fun" matters and an important part of fun is variety and an important part of variety is balanced options).
But I think for magic to actually be meaningful as *magic* it DOES need to be able to do amazing things that normal objects can't accomplish. I think there are legitimate ways to balance it (Magic that takes a long time to prepare, Magic that drains years of your life, Magic that can only be used during the Full Moon, Magic requires you to spend levels 1-6 feeling completely useless until you finally master your power). But those things don't translate well to a game of balanced classes, where a wizard alternates from feeling useless to making everyone else feel useless.
The wizards here aren't intentionally overpowered for flavor reasons to my knowledge - Bioware just did the math wrong, and I'm fine with them fixing it. But I would like to see more games that capture magic's feel of being awe inspiring instead of just a slightly flashier way of dealing X DPS.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the term "broken" predates both Magic and MMOs. It means "something that does not work."
quote:I think it makes sense to at least be aware of the lexicon that has accumulated around gaming culture. Comparisons to 12 year olds are unnecessary.
If gamers as a population have regressed to the point that they are now incapable of actually determining which of a word's meanings is being intended from context, comparisons to 12-year-olds are absolutely necessary.
Believe me, I know the lingo. However, I'll be d**ned if I let Hatrack fill up with threads about how they've nerfed pallies. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
In the case of DAO though unless I'm not putting enough points into mana or something arent "that" strong unless theres some combination of skills I am overlooking as generally in any given fight I empty my mana pool after 3 spells (with about half of it reserved for the persistant buffs) and forced to use my staff to do anything after that and constantly drain mana potions.
Maybe this changes past level 6 but right now I'm feeling the burn.
IP: Logged |
posted
The main complaint: Because of their high armor penetration and range, mage staffs seem to be better ranged weapons than bows. Given that a mage's spells are generally more useful and varied than an archer's talents, and that a mage will -- due to a high Willpower -- be able to cast those spells more often than an archer will be able to use his talents, a mage is almost always going to be better than an archer. Since you can only have four people in your party, it doesn't appear to make a lot of sense to make one of them a specialized archer.
I actually think the four-member limit is the game's biggest weakness at this point. If they'd permit five party members, I think a lot of interesting options would open up.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If gamers as a population have regressed to the point that they are now incapable of actually determining which of a word's meanings is being intended from context, comparisons to 12-year-olds are absolutely necessary.
Forgive us twelve year olds for having a hard time telling which old people are being ironic and which are being clueless. Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that I've got Heal, a group stun, a target stun, a debuffing hex spell, it is awkward.
Especially since the often most useful spell, the group stunning spell, involves running her up into the action to get some effectiveness, using the spell, and running her away.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I just found a quest that by all appearances is impossible. It's to investigate an attacked caravan, from the chanter's board. I arrive and there are four refugees being attacked by at least a dozen darkspawn, melee and ranged both and an orange emissary. Even if I cranked down the difficulty and kept Morrigan entirely on healing the refugees, I can't see any way to actually save even one or two of the refugees.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for mages: I'm a bit torn on this. I do think it's fine for a game to enforce game balance for the sake of game balance because that's ultimately what matters. (Or rather, "Fun" matters and an important part of fun is variety and an important part of variety is balanced options).
All that matters is that when you release the game, each of the classes is comparable to each other as an equally valid tactical option for playing the game. There's too many games where the choice of classes or class options is less an expression of how you want to play the game and more a minigame where if you make the wrong choice, your character or party is gimped.
Dragon Age isn't so bad, but still, mages need to be toned down and they need to make archers actually compelling.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect that'll happen, Samp. Games often tweak like that after all, and it hasn't been out long:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah we have the advantage of living in an age of online updates, even for consoles.
Also I am going to mention that "delayed gratification" classes — that start sucky and then grow overpowered — are emblematic of bad game design and are a big part of why 3rd edition D&D vanished abnormally fast in the wake of the unambiguously superior4th edition. We should not be 'purposefully' designing mages that way, and Bioware knows it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm managing much better now that I'm using tactics a bit more intelligently. Though at the rate we would suck down healing poultices without Morrigan's one healing spell, I'm seriously considering ditching her and going to grab the other caster, the dedicated healer, in spite of how fun she (Morrigan) is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Nerfed" implies that it is something that has been done after the fact, to deliberately power down some class feature. "Gimped" is what you're looking for.
In my case, however, despite how the MMOers have mangled the language, I specifically meant "broken," in the sense that the daggers, which were supposed to be coded so that DEX added to damage, are not behaving that way. I suppose, if I were talking to a twelve-year-old who'd only learned English from WoW, I'd say "bugged" instead.
But Tom, computer gamers are just as specialized a group as, veterinarians, gardeners, model builders, and lawyers. It's common for those groups to take words that mean one thing to most people and use it repeatedly in a specialized scenario so that the word takes on a new meaning germane to the group.
I guessed you knew the word "broken" could have been used, but I wasn't certain. The phrase "nerf pallies" by itself is kinda childish, but talking about class mechanics and then summing up with "In summation, I think they overnerfed the class" isn't childish.
I guess I just felt that while I understood what you were saying, the word broken having the exact opposite meaning in a conversation regarding PC games, might lead less vigorous readers to gloss over the context and see the word broken and start arguing with you.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah we have the advantage of living in an age of online updates, even for consoles.
Also I am going to mention that "delayed gratification" classes — that start sucky and then grow overpowered — are emblematic of bad game design and are a big part of why 3rd edition D&D vanished abnormally fast in the wake of the unambiguously superior4th edition. We should not be 'purposefully' designing mages that way, and Bioware knows it.
Not disagreeing with you, but you're the first person I've heard say that 4th edition is better than 3rd or 3.5.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went back and forth on whether to wade into a serious argument over gaming terminology. On one hand, it's really not that big a deal one way or another. On the other hand, I don't think there's anything noble about refusing to use terminology that has become widespread in specific contexts (and more importantly, ridiculing those who do or offer a perfectly polite correction). Yes, we knew what he meant because no, we're not idiotic 12 year olds. We could also probably ascertain the meaning of a 3 year old just learning how to talk. That doesn't mean said child shouldn't make an effort to learn how the language really works and use it accordingly.
On the third hand (evidently I'm from Beeblebrox) I have all kinds of language misuse pet peeves myself (In particularly I hate the use of "Osmosis" to mean "Diffusion." No, you didn't absorb the information via Osmosis because there was no water involved in the absorption of said information. Also, woot is correctly spelled w00t). So it's a bit hypocritical of me to call someone else on it. But when I do flip out about such things I know perfectly well it's really my problem, not theirs, and I usually manage to avoid deliberately insulting them.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought they fixed the "Wizards over/underpowered at certain levels" IN 3rd edition. It was in 1st and second edition that Wizards actually had to earn more XP to advance than fighters did (which made "sense" insofar as Wizarding is supposed to be harder than learning to swing a sword). Maybe it still wasn't perfect in 3rd edition but I think that was a situation similar to Dragon Age - a miscalculation as opposed to a deliberate intent.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boy, I should definitely have taken your advice about getting Wynne sooner, Tom. Heh. I'm sitting here wondering, "How much money could you have made selling off unused healing poultices?" Because so far, within the Tower at least, Wynne the Spirit Healer, two warriors, and the rogue (me) are entirely adequate.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I thought they fixed the "Wizards over/underpowered at certain levels" IN 3rd edition. It was in 1st and second edition that Wizards actually had to earn more XP to advance than fighters did (which made "sense" insofar as Wizarding is supposed to be harder than learning to swing a sword). Maybe it still wasn't perfect in 3rd edition but I think that was a situation similar to Dragon Age - a miscalculation as opposed to a deliberate intent.
Trust me, there was no deliberate intent for 3e to have had such blatantly poor class balance. It was just a fundamental failure of the game system.
The real difference is that Dragon Age's class imbalance is a fairly minor issue, easily managed with a patch. All the classes are roughly equivalent without any gaussian differences in tactical utility, so it's little more than a quirk. In D&D Third Edition, the class balance was disconcertingly egregious and overwhelmingly ingrained into the system to a point where it was impossible to excise.
Here's the guts of 3e's class balance failure.
1. In third edition, casters v. physicals was a contrast between the 'spellcaster strength' provided by the Vancian spellcasting system of text-interpretive effects versus the 'physical strength' of other classses being represented by superior progression in the numerical bonus effects represented by mechanics such as hit point pools, base attack bonuses and attack per round bonuses per level.
2. As levels progress, the text-interpretive effects of spells as well as the numerical pool of available spells expands the realistic potential capacity of a spellcaster in an exponential fashion, while the physical classes experience a mechanically-strictured and linear advancement. In addition to the problematic curve, the two systems are nearly impossible to balance against each other, and in fact seem to have been poorly balanced against each other even in light of that fact.
3. The designers knew that the spellcasters would get wildly more powerful than the physical classes, so they attempted to 'compensate' for the exponential power growth by having them start much weaker than the physical classes. This is terrible class balance design, through and through. It's as if they said "We know our classes end up overpowered, so we want the tradeoff to be that they start underpowered." It's fighting frustrating imbalance by adding frustrating imbalance.
5. By the double-digit levels, the physical classes are effectively D.O.A. and provide minimal impact on a party's effective capacity. Sure, they get double the mage's plusses to numbers relevant to the generic weapon attack (ooh, aah,) but by this time the wizard can be a) invisible, b) flying, c) have damage reduction 15, d) be casting fireballs at 600 yards, etc.
5. Even with this crude 'spellcasters start weak' compensation, there were certain spellcasters whose power progression was effectively not subject to the "delayed gratification" model, as though they were just missed! — they were just as good as physical classes in the beginning, and then rocketed up exponentially past that point like the 'pure' spellcasters. Chief in this category are the Clerics and Druids, who with few splatbook exceptions (various combinations of Sorceror-exclusive prestige classes, etc) start strong and end up demonstrably the most mechanically effective character. The Cleric in particular has the best 'progression curve,' being at all points significantly mechanically superior to all non-casting classes, with the pure spellcasters finally catching up to them.
6. All in all, terrible game design from a mechanical standpoint. Not a game-busting issue, but certainly mockable, and actually deleterious to the quality of gameplay when picking your class is less an expression of individual preference so much as it is a quiz with 'right' and 'wrong' answers. 4e is a demonstration of them learning their lesson: it was designed from the ground up to try to keep all classes roughly equivalent in usefulness and power within their class role when compared to all other classes. No classes that 'start weak but grow imba later as compensation.' It's one of the reasons why 3e has faded away so quickly after the release of 4e.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but I don't think it's fair to criticize 3rd edition without recognizing the baggage they were dealing with. The Vancian magic system has existed since the beginning of D&D (and by extension, roleplaying in general) and while other games may have come up with solutions in the meantime, each edition of D&D can only change so much without alienating the player base. The notion finding mechanics that somehow balance epic level spellcasting against any kind of non-supernatural power is, well, HARD. I don't blame for taking 30 years to figure it out and implement it. I know when I design game mechanics I benefit enormously from the huge variety of work that has come before me.
I don't actually know how 4th edition handles it - regardless of how good the system is I have a hard time following the new layout of the books and I usually give up after looking through a few random abilities. What DID they give to warriors that lets them compete with an epic mage? Or did they just get rid of some of the more ridiculous things an epic mage can do?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:True, but I don't think it's fair to criticize 3rd edition without recognizing the baggage they were dealing with. The Vancian magic system has existed since the beginning of D&D (and by extension, roleplaying in general) and while other games may have come up with solutions in the meantime, each edition of D&D can only change so much without alienating the player base.
Not so true, apparently. 4e discarded the old system entirely and is a massive success for it!
quote:I don't actually know how 4th edition handles it - regardless of how good the system is I have a hard time following the new layout of the books and I usually give up after looking through a few random abilities. What DID they give to warriors that lets them compete with an epic mage? Or did they just get rid of some of the more ridiculous things an epic mage can do?
They ended the schism between caster progression and BAB progression by essentially homogenizing the mechanism of power progression between classes. It makes the most sense to think of each class as a suite of cards you can pick from. Everyone has two or three cards they can use infinitely, at certain levels everyone gets a more powerful type of card they can use once per encounter, and at certain levels they get an even more powerful type of card they can use once per day. Warriors advance primarily through the acquisition of cards, casters advance the same way. There are also feats and prestige classes, but everyone utilizes them in the exact same manner (everyone gets the same number of feats, everyone gets a paragon class at the same level, everyone gets an epic class at the same level).
This mechanism allows them to avoid a problem of abnormal progression scales. Each class can be balanced at every level against any other class at that level. There's few hiccups with the mechanism and it has more or less ended the ridiculous class imbalance of third edition.
More important than bringing wizards, clerics, druids and the like back down to earth, the new system also changes gameplay so that being a warrior-type class is no longer so phenomenally boring. You don't just walk up to the target and repeat your generic attack over and over. You utilize your combat skills with variety and manage their use strategically and conservatively, and play to different roles (for instance, a warrior's role is as a 'defender' while the wizard's role is 'controller') as opposed to having any one class be able to grow in power to fill ALL roles.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Aaaaa, 4e's success is because of marketing as "Dungeons and Dragons but dumbed down so anyone can play it!" its bland, samey no variation there is no point to it for 3.5 players and only benefit to its existance is to get potential players interested in DnD as a whole who will hopefully migrate to 3.5
4th edition is an abomination who horribly chained wizards down to a class of nothing of note to distinguish the class from any other class.
There is a LARGE amount of criticism leveled against 4th edition that you apparently decided to selectively ignore.
Next your going to say Ars Magica was a terrible system for right out stating that they discard the very notion of balance and designed the system from the get go to focus on spellcasters.
Wizards have magic and fighters have big clumsy swords, there is no logical reason why ever in the higher levels a fighter should be more powerful or verstile or only equally so on par with a wizard, a fighters job is to hit things, a wizards job is to kick ass.
We are dealing with people who can on one side, tell the laws of reality to shut up and sit down, and on the other hand people who spend all day waving a stick around.
WHY should it be balanced? By level 20's your fighting the very Gods themselves and Archdemons that a fighter alone without magical support is preposterous.
Dungeons and Dragons is ultimately about PvE and wizards are balanced sufficiently enough by having only a limited number of spells each day, 4th editional underpowers wizards to ineffective irrelevence.
IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the basic mechanics behind 4th edition. What I don't understand is what kind of per Day or per Encounter Powers a fighter could get at level 20 that can (or should) be comparable to what a wizard can get. (I have a suspicion that it has something to do with the truly godlike stuff wizards could do getting put under the category of "Rituals" which from what I gather are individually balanced and generally more difficult to accomplish than "once per day.")
In my system (which is point based), while non-mages can get a wide variety of abilities to be interesting at any level, what ultimately balances them against mages is having a lot more points left over at high levels to spend on material goods (which will either need to be magical or high-technology to compete with a mage's arsenal).
My biggest complaint about 4th edition is that the homogenization of power-mechanics makes everyone feel the same. I understand that it does wonders for making game balance achievable, but it is not without massive losses in the flavor department.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is 4E really a huge hit, compared to 3E? It might well be more profitable for WotC, but 3E managed to keep a whole cottage industry afloat for a few years -- which is, as far as I can tell, not something that 4E is doing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am so in love with this game. I am having severe altitis with it lol. My two most played characters are a Human Blood Mage and a City Elf Rogue. I have also created a gay human noble who's new boyfriend spoiler
died in the origin story. I was kind of sad that there was no way to save
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: well, come on...
One can harness the powers of the elements, call upon the strength of demons, turn enemies against each other with visions of terror and confusion.
The other can shoot some arrows, occasionally causing those arrows to explode and rain splinters down into nearby enemies...
Did you expect anything different?
class balance
Complaining about class balance is almost a silly concept in MMO's it's absolutely ridiculous in a single player game
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Has anyone gotten past the duel with Loghain in the landsmeet yet? I keep getting destroyed regardless of which character I choose or what tactics I try. I tried going with the battle option instead of a duel, but then I just wound up being forced into a one on one fight anyways.
Is there something I'm missing here? This seems like a nastily difficult fight, but I didn't see much mention of it online when I searched.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Complaining about class balance is almost a silly concept in MMO's it's absolutely ridiculous in a single player game
Not at all. The reason I know such a ridiculous amount of the subject matter pertaining to the mechanics of these games is because of my involvement in the design theory of these products, and the simple fact of the matter is that choice balance is one of the most vital and elusive quality control issues facing both MMO's and single player games. Lack of class balance utterly kills games. It undercuts the intent of designers to have class choice represent personal aesthetic and taste. It's the same with single player games as it is with MMO's, except where it makes the stakes higher for the medium-term viability of online games.
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I understand the basic mechanics behind 4th edition. What I don't understand is what kind of per Day or per Encounter Powers a fighter could get at level 20 that can (or should) be comparable to what a wizard can get.
The progression theory in D&D is that the characters play heroically imbued characters. They are all more than your average mortal. They are able to progress in strength using, essentially, a supernatural mechanism. By Epic tier, any character of any class has almost assuredly acquired a form of immortality (there may be some Epic Destinies that vary from this, I don't recall) and you are already essentially apotheosizing into a supernatural being already on par with a demigod. The books make sure to mention that a Fighter who counts for the hero class is as rare as a Wizard who counts for the hero class. Through different mechanisms, they have departed from the standard limitations of a mundane being.
Now, when you ask me what powers a fighter would have at 20th level, I assume you're asking me what powers they would have at max level (D&D 4e has 30 levels). A top-level example baseline power for Fighter itself (not part of your Paragon Path, which you integrate into your class after level 10, or your Epic Destiny, which you integrate into your class after level 20) is Force the Battle, a 29th level Daily technique defined here:
quote:You deal an extra 1[W] damage with your at-will and encounter fighter powers. If an enemy starts its turn adjacent to you, you can use an at-will fighter power against it as a free action at the start of its turn, as long as you are able to make opportunity attacks.
Pretty brutal power, and it's extraordinarily helpful for a Defender (since hits on targets allow you to mark them and impose penalties on their actions if they don't subsequently focus you as a target).
The comparable Wizard spell is an ice storm which Immobilizes on hit, slows and does half damage on miss, and creates an area of difficult terrain for the remainder of the encounter. It compares against the Fighter power perfectly, as an area-of-effect controller effect designed to impose status effects and command the battlefield.
quote:My biggest complaint about 4th edition is that the homogenization of power-mechanics makes everyone feel the same.
In actuality, the classes in fourth edition really do have a remarkable amount of differentiation. The homogenization is merely in the means by which power progression occurs. In every other way, it's actually increased the differentiation of gameplay for D&D classes overall and spiced up gameplay significantly (compare to 3.x: "repeat basic attack four times, end turn.").
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Dungeons and Dragons is ultimately about PvE and wizards are balanced sufficiently enough by having only a limited number of spells each day, 4th editional underpowers wizards to ineffective irrelevence.
I'm confused. You spent most of your post telling me that wizards should not be balanced with the other classes, then you offer the idea that they are balanced as a defense. Which they aren't; they render other non-caster classes irrelevant and useless after 9 levels or so. I don't understand why you're mad that they've "underpowers wizards to ineffective irrelevence (sp)" but you're totally okay with 3rd edition underpowering non-wizards to ineffective irrelevance. I feel that you've fairly straightforwardly undermined your own position with this double standard.
In addition, if you think that a 4e wizard is relegated to 'ineffective irrelevance,' you obviously have no clue what they are capable of. Alongside invokers, they make the game's most terrifying controllers. They start out at first level already wielding some of the game's most absurd area-of-effect conditional modifier spells. Orb controller wizards in particular tend to have inescapable effects that leave other classes crying foul.
Sorry that 4e apparently stepped on your dog or something, but if you really want to champion 3.5 over it, you best not do so from a position of ignorance.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Is 4E really a huge hit, compared to 3E? It might well be more profitable for WotC, but 3E managed to keep a whole cottage industry afloat for a few years -- which is, as far as I can tell, not something that 4E is doing.
I can't say I know what you're talking about. Is there any point in the past two years during which the prominence of tabletop roleplay games hasn't increased?
As for the total consumption of 4e (the sales are good on their own, but total consumption is much higher; PDF torrenting is rampant), it's advanced the popularity of RPGA events to a startling level; it's also kept D&D vitalized in a market that's increasingly filled with competitive offerings.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there any point in the past two years during which the prominence of tabletop roleplay games hasn't increased?
Question: when did you start playing tabletop games? I know very few pen-and-paper gamers who would say that the cultural prominence of tabletop gaming has increased over the last five years. Heck, I'm pretty sure RPGA membership is down from the '90s, too, although I suppose it is "startling" that it's still around. (The continued existence of the Camarilla fan club still amazes me, too.)
quote:it's also kept D&D vitalized in a market that's increasingly filled with competitive offerings
You mean the dessicated shell of the tabletop RPG market?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to look specifically at the timeframe after 4e's release. I only know that wotc claims robust sales, but specifics are hard to nail down.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yeah, the release of any new edition is going to awaken new interest in a game system; that's what we're seeing here, I suspect. But the original release of Third Edition not only got people playing D&D again, but inspired people to start companies to produce ancillary and supplementary materials. That wasn't an unambiguous good, mind you, but certainly it had a far larger effect on the industry. 3E was in a lot of ways fairly transformative -- not least because of the SRD. In comparison, 4E feels largely reactive, like it's an attempt to anticipate the complaints and expectations of MMO players.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What 4e was reactive to, according to the primary designers of the game, who've been interviewed about what they felt necessary for the next ieteration, was that the old vancian sword & sorcery thing was pretty much cashed out. The industry had evolved beyond being tolerant of systems like that. It's the same sort of pinch that the Elder Scrolls series began feeling; they can't get away with the same mechanics that worked for them before, since the expectations on the genre have evolved.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I know. I know a lot of people at WotC (and people who were with WotC at one point or another, which is a much larger pool). I'm practically a Mearls fanboy. I argued in favor of many of the changes brought to the game in the latest edition, actually, when they first manifested in Iron Heroes and the Book of Nine Swords. *laugh* Although I'm still galled by the elimination of facing and the addition of weapon sizes in 3.5.
The fact remains, however, that 4E D&D is a "Hail Mary" pass aimed at MMO players who have become annoyed by fetch quests. It's received considerably less press and has so far sold considerably fewer copies than Third Edition. If it does in fact manage to capture a new, younger audience, it'll have acheived its goals. But it's a bit early to say that it's done that. It certainly hasn't changed the market the way 3E did, and without the OGL probably won't.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, given the whole "expectations on the genre have evolved" thing, they couldn't just go with the update-that-sticks-with-the-old-flaws unless they wanted to simply peter out slowly.
As far as attempts to keep relevant go, this is a pretty admirable way to do so, especially when most long-time players will admit that it is a mechanical improvement.
At any rate, we'll see how things are going about the time 4e has been out for six years.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I am saying that Wizards do not need to be balanced in regards to pvp situations between different classes that "might" arise from bad players and that they only need to be balanced insofar that magic is considered a vancian system which by being a system has its own set of checks and balances that should not be concerned with the complaints of players who feel their mundane class underpowered in comparison.
I have read and experianced enough of 3.5 to like it as it is and any changes to occur should only be from the additional of additional source books and house rules and read enough of 4th edition to know I do not like it for its raping of wizards to appeal to the beer drinking frat boy demographic.
To elaborate on my knee jerk position is that the only balance required is the balance to make the game enjoyable and long lasting, wizards are powerful at the end as a reward to symbolize their quest for ultimate arcane power it is consistent with the background lore, magic shouldn't be a linear progression, quadratic makes perfect sense in this regard. Obviously a wizard shouldn't be able to single handedly win every CR equal encounter in a given day without tiring the system is thus inherently self balancing without needing to remove spells or nerf the power potential and versatility of wizards via the singular notion that Magic is not a toy! and that spells should have material components, the most powerful spells take time to cast and a wizard can only cast a certain number of spells per day before tiring and that short of being a VERY clever player (Divination!) cannot be capable of handling any and every problem a DM might throw at you.
As such to be specific a Wizard class is ALREADY balanced in such a way that by starting weak and ending strong requiring cautious and intelligent play to stay alive until the end, a situation compounded by Tom's low magic settings makes the situation even more clear. Magic as used by wizards is MEANT to be an alpha class but should be extraordinarily difficult to master in play but not unplayably so.
All of this from the assumption that D&D is a PVE game and that considerations of class balance between the classes in a competitive sense should ever never or only minimally effect decisions on the matter, ie a wizard is more interesting to play then a fighter most of the time from a powergaming approch, so lets add the Book of 9 Swords to make them more interesting etc.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Aha Order of the Stick forums to the rescue! Auxillery opinions here:
quote: I have read and experianced enough of 3.5 to like it as it is and any changes to occur should only be from the additional of additional source books and house rules and read enough of 4th edition to know I do not like it for its raping of wizards to appeal to the beer drinking frat boy demographic.
Dude, there are so many silly things in this paragraph I'll just boil it down: you liked 3.5 because it catered to many of your push-button issues, so to speak, with D&D. Spellcasters in general and wizards/sorcerers in particular are much more powerful than other classes, except for at low levels. They're either substantially more powerful, after the first few levels, or out-of-the-park more powerful, once you get into the teens.
4e, apparently, changes that to the extent that spellcasters aren't drastically more powerful at nearly every stage of the game. You enjoy playing spellcasters, thus you don't like that as much. There's no need to be defensive about it, it's all a matter of tastes. There's also no need to speak as though there were some non-arbitrary reasoning for your dissatisfaction, either:)
-----
One thing I don't get about Morrigan: the mission is, apparently, to use diplomacy and favor-currying to spur many separate groups to unite under a Grey Warden banner and fight against the Blight. Given that hearts-and-minds aspect, why is she so consistently against helping people out as though it were contrary to 'the mission's' interests?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, somehow in the transition to Windows 7 my character got lost. Which is particularly bizarre since I specifically installed Steam on an external hard drive for just such a reason.
I started over as a Mage. So far the plot seems a lot more generic than the dwarf commoner. People were oohing and aahing about the Harrowing so I assume something cool happens later (unless they were seriously impressed with the "twist" in the intro section), but for I've kinda lost my momentum.
Which is probably a good thing, cause I have work to do and sleep to get.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
