Guest [Unregistered]
21:15:21 Thu
May 20 2004 |
...guess I should post on the thread I inadvertantly started... especially after the embarssment of thinking my original post disappeared... 
"A quick summary: The CR system includes in it the assumption that character wealth plays a part in determining how tough a character is, and therefore there should be fairly solid guidelines regarding how much wealth a character should accumulate by a given level. "
Hmmmm... I honestly hadn't had much problem with this in most of my campaigns, and mine tend to be decidedly 'low-magic' in respect to magic items. The fact that the CR system is based on iconic, average-stat, non-tweaked characters means that well-designed, specialized, carefully created characters often stand as much of a chance with little magic as those with higher (standard) magic do when they are just 'average' character templates.
If anything, the CR system is far too lenient when you have well-designed (note I'm not saying Min/Maxed, that's another level up entirely) characters. Giving them the 'standard' level of magic just makes the monsters more inferior.
"If the DM is too stingy, or plays too fast-and-loose with things like Mordenkainen's Disjunction or similar effects that damage magical items, the PCs may have difficulties taking on creatures of their CR. If the DM is too generous, then PCs will need creatures of higher CRs to give them a challenge. "
Again, really haven't seen this too much. A DM being 'moderate' (ie: as in the DMG) will often have a problem CHALLENGING the players at all.
"Any semblance of balance goes out the window. Clerics get access to spells like Divine Power, allowing them to fight as well (or better) than fighter-types."
Yep, that's definately a problem I can agree with. Yet another reason I like having the option to use Healers that aren't Clerics.
"Druids get Wild Shape, which can be massively powerful if used intelligently. "
And a massive waste of time if used otherwise. I find there's more abuse of things like Shapechange, but since that's higher level, yeah, I can see how this one might get carried away.
"Rogues get special abilties as well as high damage bonuses from sneak attack (which gets easier to use, if the rogue is built well)."
They'd certainly well better. They are the 'jack-of-all-skills' class. They've got the staying power of tissue paper, though, which means they often get off a single round of possible Sneak before the creature beats them down. Beings as they are 'support combatants', going toe-to-toe with most critters will get them mulched. There's nothing fine with the Rogue sneaking up and finishing things from behind, that's fine, but you won't see them outfighting a Fighter type.
BTW: SNeak attack is easy to use at level 1. Hit first or flank. At higher levels, it tends to break down against most creatures, beings as they tend to be the wrong type, too big to sneak (can't reach a 30' dragon's genitals, for instance), or have advanced senses or abilities which negate sneak.
"Sorcerers and Wizards start getting access to save-or-die spells, which reduces both combat duration and the usefulness of standard combat techniques (a fighter just doesn't have a lot to do if the party wizard is turning all of the bad guys into turtles)."
Or statues, or piles of dust, etc. Which is why, even at high levels, there are creatures which appear in hordes or swarms, or even defensive spells that negate these problems. For everything in the game, there's usually some sort of counter, often two or three. Note, there are definately a few broken things... but which level-based game system is perfect so far?
"Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers...don't get much of anything new, and certainly not anything that can keep up with the other aforementioned classes."
Nope, but both of those tend to be 'building block' classes, used in portions to build into other classes, often PrC's. Kind of expected this. I, personally, believe (and mentioned before) that the Strong Hero from D20 Modern should be made into a 20 level class and named "Fighter."
"Yes, I didn't mention Bards and Monks -- they're screwed from level 1."
I understand bards... but MONKS?
"I think you missed my point. I was stating that your argument worked only for a game going Epic."
That's because the example wasn't an argument on all points, just pointing out an observation. Thanks.
"That is not even close to an assumption that can be made for most games."
Indeed. I already pointed this out.
"Therefore, judgements probably should be made based on pre-epic usefulness."
And, you know what? I never said anything about this nor inferred it. I said, "If Epic THEN this is a possibility".
"Besides, the argument that the problems pre-epic aren't problems, because everything (might) work out in Epic just doesn't fly -- the promise of Epic power doesn't make up for the first 20 levels of uselessness."
Nice straw man. Good thing that wasn't my argument, hey?
BTW: 20 levels of full caster class levels is useless?
"This is flat-out a false assumption. It is totally within the DM's power to choose not to throw one in to his game, regardless of what powers PCs may or may not have."
Well, then your argument seems to imply that a DM will not accomadate players. If that is the case, he probably won't have many players. I see no reason for the possible Entropo to ask the DM "Hey, if I got higher level, would I Have the ability to hunt out Spheres?"
*shrug* Then it also makes a good NPC class, as well. Do most players use the all-Dragon PrC's in the Draconomicon or the PrC's in the Book of VIle Darkness? Maybe the class blows for most PC's, still doesn't make it useless.
"The DM decides what flies in his game and what doesn't. Not the players. "
Which is why most players and DM's, you know, talk to each other to find out what is allowed and what is not. If the DM doesn't allow it, fine, the player moves on. If the DM is really anal, he won't have players for long.
"Therefore, again, characters that are dependant on items that they may or may not encounter don't work, because it is far too easy for a DM to screw such a character."
This is an argument HOW? He's the DM! He can find easy ways to screw ANY character! If the DM wants to screw you, well, buddy, you're screwed. If your DM is a rotten cabbage of a man, I don't imagine he'll keep those players for long (as above). If your DM is the type to go after your items, you've got more problems then a less-than-maximum power class.
"The jobs aren't mutually exclusive -- that's why I'm still hesitant about Spontaneous Healer. "
Of course, at the time you wrote this, you didn't know about the limit on use.
"The focus for clerics, however, has simply shifted. While they can heal, clerics are able and expected to be powerful combatants, as well. Therefore, my assessment is correct -- it is not correct to say that the cleric's "usual job" is healing, as the cleric now does much more than that."
OK, which class do you think isn't meant to be a combatant? EVERY character is expected to be a powerful combatant. Wizards are expected to crank damage over an area. Fighters are expected to go toe-to-toe. Rogues are expected to crank out damage directly once the fighter is in place.
Now, which class is expected to keep the other classes going? My argument still stands.
"You must be kidding. Simply put -- if the Fighter and Rogue do not have the same level of usefulness at any given level (which they don't in the D&D ruleset), then there is more reason to be one and less to be the other.
This creates difficulties, making some character builds more or less survivable/enjoyable than others, and ultimately limits the creative choices open to players."
Now you are kidding. Apparently you are expecting every person to strain to make an MVP character, one superior to all the others because that particular character would be 'more survivable' or 'more playable'. In that case, let's pretty much kill every class except the two most powerful, since there's no reason to play anything else.
Each person prefers a different style of character. While there are some munchkins who strive only for the highest numbers, most players like variety and something interesting, and they all tend to have different preferences. Put a Fighter and a Rogue in one on one combat versus a creature. Ok, most squishy targets are fine for the Rogue, if he goes first or has some cover. If he's alone, or if its a 'material monster' (whether rock, dead flesh, or liquid flame), the Rogue is pretty much useless as a melee/ranged combatant. The Fighter, however, has no problem plugging away. Which one has more usefulness? Now place them in a role where they have to sneak past guards or climb a 200' cliff. Yeah, different usefulness.
"I really shouldn't have to explain why this is bad -- it really should be amazingly obvious. "
So, please explain to me HOW it's bad first, then maybe the 'why' will work.
"You've hit upon the class balance problem. Look back at my original post -- I used the term "ideal" for a reason. That's how things should be. It's just generally not a good thing for classes to have such disparity in areas of and opportunities for usefulness. Things should be balanced, but they're not. That's why I've been making these arguments..."
Why? Why is this a necessity? Just because each character class has it's own specific highlights or abilities that another cannot do, why should they be 'balanced' in every conceivable way? If every class were equally useful in every situation, it would be a hella boring game! It would detract from teamwork, it would detract from party interdependency, and on the whole, it would detract from overall fun.
"In a word, yes. The Wizard 20s and Cleric 20s should be better Wizards and Clerics, but if the massively multiclassed monstrosity you've proposed can't put together something more or less equivalent to (but not necessarily the same as) the usefulness of the single-classed variations. Otherwise, the game mechanics simply stomp all over the creativity of the player who wants to run such a character, and that's a bad thing. This is elementary game design, here..."
No, it's not. You're missing the 'elementary game design' concept. What you want is a classless system of 'point based' abilities that have been balanced and have a 'handicap' point system to enhance the characters. The problem is, that is far, FAR too complex of a game system to be feasible! Why? Because each time you add something new, you have to rebalance everything else. What you're proposing really won't work in a level-based game. What you want is perfect, absolute balance.
I'll finish more replies tomorrow. Until then, good day.
|
The XP penalties are mind boggling!
Fixed quote.
Really makes one scream "CLERIC!!!!!!" And I've done the bit of cleansing a holy site that had been ruined by an evil malignment. And bringing other party members back to life and otherwise healing them.