Live Together, Die Alone
Monte is reminiscing about the original concept of cooperation and teamwork in D&D. When you deal with a game in a manner of cooperation, you don't have to worry so much about whether a fighter is balanced against a wizard at every level. The concept of players being perfectly balanced is preposterous. Even on Paizo's boards, there are constant discussions about wizards and melee types not being balanced. What's the point if they're balanced, the game is supposed to be about cooperation, not competition.
One of the problems with 4th edition is the design philosophy of making all classes balanced. Everyone progressing at the same power level. Just re-skinned by power source and power name. Pathfinder tried smoothing some of the issues by making the classes seen only as "dip" classes more interesting, rear-loading the interesting powers after level 6 or so.
I don't care if a wizard isn't balanced to a fighter. They're not SUPPOSED to be. In 1st edition, the magic-user was THE glass cannon, with only 10d4(+change) hit dice max, they could easily be slain, but they also wielded the powers of the creation; The fighter was the ONLY class that had multiple melee attacks, the paladin had powers based upon getting a holy avenger. Rangers were the masters of Two-weapon fighting, Rogues were the ones who got the rogue skills. Now, 1st ed definitely had issues. The lack of a skill system for non-combat skills was a major one, thus was born AD&D 2nd ed, and eventually skills & powers.
Fun in paramount, balance is not. Flavor is important, balance is not. Cooperation is important...
Live Together, Die alone...Don't split the party...
Monte is reminiscing about the original concept of cooperation and teamwork in D&D. When you deal with a game in a manner of cooperation, you don't have to worry so much about whether a fighter is balanced against a wizard at every level. The concept of players being perfectly balanced is preposterous. Even on Paizo's boards, there are constant discussions about wizards and melee types not being balanced. What's the point if they're balanced, the game is supposed to be about cooperation, not competition.
One of the problems with 4th edition is the design philosophy of making all classes balanced. Everyone progressing at the same power level. Just re-skinned by power source and power name. Pathfinder tried smoothing some of the issues by making the classes seen only as "dip" classes more interesting, rear-loading the interesting powers after level 6 or so.
I don't care if a wizard isn't balanced to a fighter. They're not SUPPOSED to be. In 1st edition, the magic-user was THE glass cannon, with only 10d4(+change) hit dice max, they could easily be slain, but they also wielded the powers of the creation; The fighter was the ONLY class that had multiple melee attacks, the paladin had powers based upon getting a holy avenger. Rangers were the masters of Two-weapon fighting, Rogues were the ones who got the rogue skills. Now, 1st ed definitely had issues. The lack of a skill system for non-combat skills was a major one, thus was born AD&D 2nd ed, and eventually skills & powers.
Fun in paramount, balance is not. Flavor is important, balance is not. Cooperation is important...
Live Together, Die alone...Don't split the party...
No comments:
Post a Comment