So I thought I'd offer a thread where those individuals can specifically discuss in what ways they might alter 4e to suit their need for a fair but not necessarily symmetrical game.
I say symmetrical instead of balanced, because the truth is, most people want balance in their games...they want fair and impartial rules with which to enjoy the game with the widest variety of other people possible. Honestly, isn't that more the purpose of the game? Not to enjoy it with ONLY your friends, but rather with anyone you play with...preferrably as broad a community as possible.
I don't have much input on creating asymmetrically balanced system. Sorry, but I like symmetry...nature is largely both symmetrical and balanced, and in all things, I agree with her completely. Nature is always better at doing the things she does, than we are...always.
Like I said, I just wanted to start a thread that provided those who prefer asymmetry in their games...with fair balance. Perhaps something like some classes getting more dailys and fewer encounter powers...whatever...things like that.
So, have at it, and good luck.
Nitpick: Nature isn't symmetric. Take a frontal portrait of yourself, cut it in half at the perpendicular axis, then copy and mirror both halves. Now put together two new pictures formed out of the two halves of your faces. The result are two entirely different faces.
Quote: "Symmetrie ist Schönheit für Idioten."
(Translation: Symmetry is beauty for idiots. Taken out of the booklet of Fehlfarben's album "Monarchie & Alltag".)
It means that symmetry is boring. A symmetric face may be considered beautiful, but you get tired of it very fast, because there is nothing new to see when you look at it more than once.
Do you know about the Golden Cut or Golden Ratio? It's a very old principle in both mathematics and art. The Ratio often appears in geometry, and even in nature. Painters used it in their works (Da Vinci, for example); it's used in music and in architecture.
The point: It is entirely non-symmetric. To quote the definition from wikipedia: "Two quantities are in the golden ratio if the ratio between the sum of those quantities and the larger one is the same as the ratio between the larger one and the smaller."
Now carry on.
One nitpick and and a quote:
Nitpick: Nature isn't symmetric. Take a frontal portrait of yourself, cut it in half at the perpendicular axis, then copy and mirror both halves. Now put together two new pictures formed out of the two halves of your faces. The result are two entirely different faces.
Quote: "Symmetrie ist Schönheit für Idioten."
(Translation: Symmetry is beauty for idiots. Taken out of the booklet of Fehlfarben's album "Monarchie & Alltag".)
It means that symmetry is boring. A symmetric face may be considered beautiful, but you get tired of it very fast, because there is nothing new to see when you look at it more than once.
Do you know about the Golden Cut or Golden Ration? It's a very old principle in both fields. The Ratio often appears in geometry, and even in nature. Painters used it in their works (Da Vinci, for example); it's used in music and in architecture.
The point: It is entirely non-symmetric. To quote the definition from wikipedia: "Two quantities are in the golden ratio if the ratio between the sum of those quantities and the larger one is the same as the ratio between the larger one and the smaller."
Now carry on.
First...I know about that. Second...I didn't mean geometric symmetry. A place for everything, and everything in its place. I might be misusing the word, but to me that is real symmetry. No, I'm not going to explain it. No offense...but nitpick in PMs unless they're directly relevant to topics. I've got pet peeves about spelling, but I don't call people on them, because they're not relevant to the discussion. But...no harm, no foul this time.
I think you mis-used the word, yes. Symmetry is usually used in relation to mathematics. Therefore, the premise of this thread is a bit off.
You could also argue if 4e is a symmetric game at all, since the classes only look the same, but don't play the same. Or so I heard. I think "balance" is better suited.
The powers are balanced, though not perfectly balanced in a few cases(that's what errata's are for), but they are not symmetrical or diametrical.
Sanjay
Or take away all its at wills and give it 2-3 additional dailies and maybe an encounter power also.
Take away a classes encounters and give it more dailies.
Take away a classes Dailies and give it more encounters. Lets say each time it gets a Daily it gets an additional encounter power instead.
Take away a classes encounters and at wills and give it a 4 dailies at each of he appropriate levels. If a Daily does damage it does a certain amount of dice per level. to an established cap. For example fireball will start at 5d6 and increase at d6 a level until it gets to its cap at 10th level. Meteor Swarm will be an odd exception doing a flat 28d6 damage.
Let summons take full rounds worth of actions and require no sustain. Caster shares damage with the summons. One HP pool for them.
Or take away all its at wills and give it 2-3 additional dailies and maybe an encounter power also.
Take away a classes encounters and give it more dailies.
Take away a classes Dailies and give it more encounters. Lets say each time it gets a Daily it gets an additional encounter power instead.
Take away a classes encounters and at wills and give it a 4 dailies at each of he appropriate levels. If a Daily does damage it does a certain amount of dice per level. to an established cap. For example fireball will start at 5d6 and increase at d6 a level until it gets to its cap at 10th level. Meteor Swarm will be an odd exception doing a flat 28d6 damage.
Let summons take full rounds worth of actions and require no sustain. Caster shares damage with the summons. One HP pool for them.
There are two issues with this:
1) 4th ed isn't "too balanced", you just are uncomfortable with all players being effective at all levels.
2) Parties should be composed of more than 1 class.
If you want an unbalanced system play Paranoia!.
Now to defend my two points, let's suppose not real quick here:
I) 4th ed is "too balanced"
This means that
A)The rules for the game are completely fair
~~Can you see any fault in this? I can't
B)The classes are all the same
---1)All of the powers are basically the same
-------a)You roll to hit, you deal damage and you might do a status effect
~~~~~~This is essentilly the same as every prior edition. You attack, or ~~~~~~cast (in which case your "attack" is the AC the target must hit)
~~~~~~you deal some damage (sometimes none) and you impose a status
~~~~~~effect (sometimes none, but often in 3.X death)
-------b)Nothing is mechanically different between a magic missile and a dart
~~~~~~Since when were mechanics required for differentiation in a RPG?
~~~~~~By this logic all wizards are the same because they have the same
~~~~~~base mechanics.
---2)Everyone has the same amount of powers
~~~~~~So if I have 2 pennys and a nickel and you have 3 quarters we ~~~~~~have the same amount?
---3)Classes all advance at the same rate
-------a)Everyone gains abilities at the same time
~~~~~~The only true change here is that everyone gains all of their class
~~~~~~features at level 1. The changes to multiclassing took away the ~~~~~~need to "bury" class features to prevent level dipping, and the ~~~~~~power system encompasses the higher level powers. The only
~~~~~~other item is feats which were gained at the same time in 3.X
-------b)Everyone levels up at the same time
~~~~~~True since 3rd ed.
C)No class is clearly superior to all others
~~~~~~This is the true complaint. Not a lack of "flavor" or uniqueness but
~~~~~~a lack of a super class.
==============================
If I missed one please point it out.
I can only think of two systems that do not actively attempt to be as balanced as possible* Hackmaster and Paranoia! and they have a common thread between them: They are Comedy RPGs. While one player being completely worthless in comparison to the others might be interesting for a session or two, it gets old really fast.
*Prior editions of D&D tried to be as balanced as possible, granted sometimes from odd angles (different XP tables O.o).
In symmetrical balance, each unit is balanced with each other unit across all fields of play. That is, each unit is equally good at combat, at social interaction, at puzzle solving. This is the sort of symmetry 4E aims for.
In assymetrical balance, each unit is balanced to excel in a different area of play while being weak in others, but with each area of play being balanced. So you might have one unit as a puzzle solver, one as a combat-resolver, and one as a conversationalist, with all those competencies being equally valuable. This is the sort of symmetry that 3.5 (kind of) aimed for.
They're both fine ways of designing play. 4E does a better job at what it aspires to than 3.5 did with its goal, in my opinion. I don't tend to bash 3.5 for trying something different to 4E, but merely for not achieving what it tried for.
The challenge for symmetrical play is that because player competencies overlap it can be difficult for any character to feel special, unique, or needed. 4E overcomes this by introducing balance assymetry within combat, through the roles system - four distinct competencies, each valuable, with (theoretically) no single character excelling at more than one. It more or less works, as a mechanic.
The challenge for assymetrical play is that because only one player is good in any given situation, at any given time there's only one relevant player, with everyone else being their lackeys. During conversation there's little constructive for anyone except the diplomat to add; during combat the combat-resolver (typically a spellcaster in 3.5) eclipses everyone else. 3.5 had the additional problem that some classes (spellcasters) were all-rounders - they had the win button for combat, puzzle solving and social encounters.
Just because 3.5 did it poorly doesn't mean it can't be done well; similarly, just because 4E does its thing well it doesn't mean it can't be done better.
Second, I like 4e as is. I don't want it changed in the manner suggested by the title.
This thread is for those who wish to discuss what ways might be used to change 4e from being "too balanced" and still remain fair...or unfair if they're that hard-up about it.
So...please, no one attribute ANYTHING in this thread to me.
If using the rules as is makes the game the most fun, then there you go. No system should be with out its homebrews & house rules. Just do what nets the most fun. Variety creates the most possible chances for fun, and also for frustration. But its important to keep evolving the system we are currently in or else you end up with stagnation.
I support an organized way of making 4E unique and interesting even at the loss of a little symmetry and balance (two things that should be walking hand and hand with Role Playing.)
Just my two cents
Although I've accepted it as the nature of the game for the sake of playing, I just have trouble imagining a martial character only being allowed to do something once a day.
Although I've accepted it as the nature of the game for the sake of playing, I just have trouble imagining a martial character only being allowed to do something once a day.
I also have trouble imagining a Magic User only being allowed to do something once a day.
Even more so if they don't have At-Wills. Wow, some all powerful Wizard you turned out to be! You can't even do the most basic trick you've got more than once a day.
I also have trouble imagining a Magic User only being allowed to do something once a day.
Even more so if they don't have At-Wills. Wow, some all powerful Wizard you turned out to be! You can't even do the most basic trick you've got more than once a day.
That I don't have trouble with because, well, magic works however the designer says it works. We don't have a real basis to say "No, that's not right". But it's a little harder to do that for a martial character, who we have a quasi-basis for.