In the earlier levels, fighters are generally the most powerfull and able bodied class while wizards are by far the weakest. Arcane casters generally suck for a long time, but in the end game, they are by far the most versatile and potentially powerfull class.
It's no offense to anyone here at all, I promise, but all of this talk seems so wierd to me. My group very rarely ever has discussions about balance issues. I can remember every general topic, most of them have to deal with custom made classes.
The biggest one was second edition psionics. They are broken. It's common knowledge.
We have discussed the brokenness of my paladan Roland. Combining grand mastery with a musket and the paladins bonuses can be quite broken. He was also a combination of two powerfull custom kits (think PsC) that probably never should have existed together.
We had some problems with a particular elf archer, based off a custom made class we invented.
There was one player, who used to play in our group, who was simply a master at manipulating loopholes in wizard spells and also he perfected abusing the wish spell. At least in second edition, if you have an already powerfull wizard, who happens to lack morals, he can do some of the most broken things with cumulative uses of graft flesh, clone and magic jar. I know that one time, over the course many sessions and with much planning, he created the most rediculous cimera by grafting various powerfull magical creatures remains together, then cloned it, so that it was a whole, physical being enfused with various properties, used several wishes on the monstrosity (I'm not sure what he did with those), and then finished the process off by using magical jar so that the cimera became his body.
But generally, we just don't get into balance issues outside of rare and pecular characters. I wonder if third is more prone to enabling broken combinations. I do know that third edition was inspired largely by the Optional powers and abilities book which was printed near the end of second edition. My group dismissed these optional rules, because they welcomed power gaming. I don't know how far this extends into third though. Again, I'm not trying to sound condescending. I'm just combining the facts that my group rarely every experiences balance issues, even though we play with creative players in high level games. And that in third edition, balance issues seem to rise up often, and not only on our website.
The balance of "you be good on low levels, then suck on high, and I'll do the reverse" is frankly not all that acceptable, considering a plethora of other systems manage to avoid it.
In the earlier levels, fighters are generally the most powerfull and able bodied class while wizards are by far the weakest. Arcane casters generally suck for a long time, but in the end game, they are by far the most versatile and potentially powerfull class.
It's no offense to anyone here at all, I promise, but all of this talk seems so wierd to me. My group very rarely ever has discussions about balance issues. I can remember every general topic, most of them have to deal with custom made classes.
That's just your group. I've been told by more than one 2e grognard that there were just as many balance issues in past editions.
We have discussed the brokenness of my paladan Roland. Combining grand mastery with a musket and the paladins bonuses can be quite broken. He was also a combination of two powerfull custom kits (think PsC) that probably never should have existed together.
We had some problems with a particular elf archer, based off a custom made class we invented.
There was one player, who used to play in our group, who was simply a master at manipulating loopholes in wizard spells and also he perfected abusing the wish spell. At least in second edition, if you have an already powerfull wizard, who happens to lack morals, he can do some of the most broken things with cumulative uses of graft flesh, clone and magic jar. I know that one time, over the course many sessions and with much planning, he created the most rediculous cimera by grafting various powerfull magical creatures remains together, then cloned it, so that it was a whole, physical being enfused with various properties, used several wishes on the monstrosity (I'm not sure what he did with those), and then finished the process off by using magical jar so that the cimera became his body.
But generally, we just don't get into balance issues outside of rare and pecular characters. I wonder if third is more prone to enabling broken combinations. I do know that third edition was inspired largely by the Optional powers and abilities book which was printed near the end of second edition. My group dismissed these optional rules, because they welcomed power gaming. I don't know how far this extends into third though. Again, I'm not trying to sound condescending. I'm just combining the facts that my group rarely every experiences balance issues, even though we play with creative players in high level games. And that in third edition, balance issues seem to rise up often, and not only on our website.
Balance issues come up for a variety of reasons. Perhaps because 3e is the first edition to be played exclusively in the internet age, common complaints that may have once been forgotten once the game ends are now logged on sites and forums everywhere. I argue that there aren't more balance issues in 3e, people are just more vocal about them.
Despite it's flaws, I think that 3e is a superior system in that it allows for so many options- any concept is viable with enough imagination and access to the right resources.
Is 3e the perfect system for all types of games? No, not at all. There are strictly better choices for different styles of games, but D&D does what it is intended to do quite well- create a combat-oriented fantasy game designed for party play, with plenty of potential for storytelling and battle tactics alike (Remember, D&D was created when Gary Gygax originally adapted the old war game Chainmail, so the game has roots deep in the wargaming scene).
I really do like 3.5, but as I have said many times before- I'm a game designer at heart, and a full-time DM. It's not only my job to pay attention to meta-game details, system inconsistencies, and balance issues, but it's an unchangeable detail of my personality. I look for problems. That doesn't mean I don't like it- after all, every system has problems. Sometimes those problems are what gives a game its charm. And luckily, in the case of D&D, you have so many options, you can choose to use or ignore any problematic class, feat, spell, or anything and it will be totally fine.
I really like 3.5- if I didn't, would I have spent close to a thousand dollars on books and materials to play it? Probably not.
Also: Psychoburner gets a +1 mace for the 100th post.
Yeah, I really want to emphasize. I'm not saying 2e>3e Just that my group hasn't encountered many balance issues. Mabey it's just the way we approach it. I know for a fact that the Optional Powers and Abilities book opened up some game breaking potential for 2e though. We dismissed it after carefull consideration.
I do have a question about third though. Is it kindof like how magic metagaming has been over the years? You have a nearly limitless potential for decks, but the power advantages that a few combinations give tend to force players into certain builds to be on par. In magic, there are limitless potential deck combinations, but the metagame forces competitive players to either play pretty much pre-built decks or to specifically build their decks to answer the broken few net-decks. Is third the same?
Edit: The internet age point you make, Photon, is quite good. It carries over well to my magic analogy actually, because before the intenet age, there simply were no net decks to worry about.
I guess what I'm really asking is, is it that versatile considering that players don't want to be outclassed by broken combinations?
That's not meant to be snide nor rhetorical. I'm seriously curious.
Yeah, I really want to emphasize. I'm not saying 2e>3e Just that my group hasn't encountered many balance issues. Mabey it's just the way we approach it. I know for a fact that the Optional Powers and Abilities book opened up some game breaking potential for 2e though. We dismissed it after carefull consideration.
I do have a questiona bout third though. Is it kindof like how magic metagaming has been over the years? You have a nearly limitless potential for decks, but the power advantages that a few combinations give tend to force players into certain builds to be on par. In magic, there are limitless potential deck combinations, but the metagame forces competitive players to either play pretty much pre-built decks or to specifically build thier decks to answer the broken few net-decks. Is third the same?
I guess what I'm really asking is, is it that versatile considering that players don't want to be outclassed by broken combinations.
That's not meant to be snide nor rhetorical. I'm seriously curious.
I don't have many balance issues with my group, either- in fact, I've never had to worry about one of my own players busting the game open, with the noted exception of my younger brother, and that was because he's a notorious min-maxer who has the mutant power to look at a game, see all it's loopholes, and find the most innocuous way to exploit them.
Metagame is less of an issue in D&D in general, as each group is different, and has it's own metagame. However, in campaigns that tend to stay closer to RAW (rules as written), or campaigns that are particularly status quo, the issues arise. I have probably heard hundreds of complaints on the power of the wizard and cleric, and yet people still play other classes regardless. It's not so much that people feel forced to play power roles like the Cleric, it's more that players who choose not to are typically overshadowed by their companions- their companions who were for the most part pretty damn good at their chosen roles from the beginning.
The point is not that physical combat is better in early game- because it's not, really. Prismatic spray still trumps a well armed fighter when evaluated in a vacuum. The point is all non-magical roles in a party are made obsolete by about 12th level. That is the real issue, I feel- characters who want to become powerful presences in the world must become spellcasters after a fashion, or be happy to retire to the sidelines in perpetual irrelevance.
This is not a new occurance in third edition. This tends to be the case in all editions of D&D. Magic just carries more weight, which a lot of people find to be unfair.
3.5 is amazingly versatile. Certainly, some classes are clearly above and beyond the curve- but that doesn't stop people from playing weaker classes. It's not like MTG, where you need to try and build a tier 1 deck to be viable. Despite the fact that they are widely acknowledged as being inferior, people still play fighters, and samurai, and monks, and soulknives, and the whole lot of "suck" classes. And for the most part, the differences don't arise, but if you look at the system objectively (or play in a status quo game, where builds need to be somewhat competitively built to survive), the issues become apparent. Most of the time, people aren't that greatly affected by it.
But still, those of us that enjoy breaking a system down like to complain about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[16:23] Alacar Leoricar: maybe if you do it'll make the porn more meaningful
I don't have many balance issues with my group, either- in fact, I've never had to worry about one of my own players busting the game open, with the noted exception of my younger brother, and that was because he's a notorious min-maxer who has the mutant power to look at a game, see all it's loopholes, and find the most innocuous way to exploit them.
Metagame is less of an issue in D&D in general, as each group is different, and has it's own metagame. However, in campaigns that tend to stay closer to RAW (rules as written), or campaigns that are particularly status quo, the issues arise. I have probably heard hundreds of complaints on the power of the wizard and cleric, and yet people still play other classes regardless. It's not so much that people feel forced to play power roles like the Cleric, it's more that players who choose not to are typically overshadowed by their companions- their companions who were for the most part pretty damn good at their chosen roles from the beginning.
The point is not that physical combat is better in early game- because it's not, really. Prismatic spray still trumps a well armed fighter when evaluated in a vacuum. The point is all non-magical roles in a party are made obsolete by about 12th level. That is the real issue, I feel- characters who want to become powerful presences in the world must become spellcasters after a fashion, or be happy to retire to the sidelines in perpetual irrelevance.
This is not a new occurance in third edition. This tends to be the case in all editions of D&D. Magic just carries more weight, which a lot of people find to be unfair.
3.5 is amazingly versatile. Certainly, some classes are clearly above and beyond the curve- but that doesn't stop people from playing weaker classes. It's not like MTG, where you need to try and build a tier 1 deck to be viable. Despite the fact that they are widely acknowledged as being inferior, people still play fighters, and samurai, and monks, and soulknives, and the whole lot of "suck" classes. And for the most part, the differences don't arise, but if you look at the system objectively (or play in a status quo game, where builds need to be somewhat competitively built to survive), the issues become apparent. Most of the time, people aren't that greatly affected by it.
But still, those of us that enjoy breaking a system down like to complain about it.
Thanks, thats a great explination, and it makes sense. It's relieving to know that groups can function in harmony and ignore potential brokenness. I remember reading a thread at the wizards site about a broken kobold of some sort and it was just disgusting!
About fighters: I've always felt that the true strength of a high level fighter comes into consistant power. In a long, drawn out melee, a wizard will run out of usefull spells eventually. The fighter though, is still out there, churning along, and never runs out of offensive potential. In short, burst encounters, the wizard can exaust a few recources to devistating effect, but in long, drawn out encounters, the wizard has to rely on guile and reserved use of powers. Especially considering the divine knowledge that a boss battle could be looming after a long dungeon crawl.
Wizards also have huge weaknesses. The biggest is the danger of an encounter durring the middle of the night. The wizard forgets his memorized spells. I often play spellcasters and that problem has happend more than enough to humble my opinion of the wizard. This also ties into another problem: reliance on time. A wizard needs 8 hours of sleep to memorize spells. If a big war campaign is going to start 7 hours from now, and a wizard is low in memorised spells, it can be a huge disadvantage.
This is all dependant on second edition rules, im not sure how sleeping and such effects wizards in 3.5
Whee! Sorry to pull away from the D&D talk, but I feel like i had to announce that I'm on level 21, in the Climbing Trees part of Kingdom Hearts... whee ... I'm seriously starting to hate those damn monkeys lol...
Thanks, thats a great explination, and it makes sense.
About fighters: I've always felt that the true strenght of a high level fighter comes into consistant power. In a long, drawn out melee, a wizard will run out of usefull spells eventually. The fighter though, is still out there, churning allong, and never runs out of offensive potential. In short, burst encounters, the wizard can exaust a few recourses to devistating effects, but in long, drawn out encounters, the wizard has to rely on guile and reserved use of powers. Especially considering the diving knowledge that a boss battle could be looming after a long dungeon crawl.
Wizards also have huge weaknesses. The biggest is the danger of an encounter durring the middle of the night. The wizard forgets his memorized spells. I often play spellcasters and that problem has happend more than enough to humble my openion of the wizard. This also ties into another problem, reliance on time. A wizard needs 8 hours of sleep to memorize spells. If a big war campaign is going to start 7 hours from now, and a wizard is low in memorised spells, it can be a huge disadvantage.
This is all dependant on second edition rules, im not sure how sleeping and such effects wizards in 3.5
While that is true enough about the wizard, the fact is that it's not enough of a drawback. Prepared casting is more a strength than a weakness, and the potential of running out of spells is rarely a problem- because after all, to run out of spells, they would have needed to cast them first, and usually the casting leads to the killing of any real threats. The attack in the night scenario is bad for a wizard, but a fairly narrow circumstance- a DM can't realistically gun for the wizard each time he starts to doze off all Freddy Krueger, because it's heavy handed and unfair. Furthermore, a situation-based circumstance can't be considered a real weakness, any more than running dual lands can be considered a major weakness because your opponent may have LD or Blood Moon. Also, any spells a wizard had prepared before sleeping are still there, so he could also pack a fireball or two away just in case something went bump in the night.
In general, time is a non-issue for wizards because of some tricks they can exploit. Teleport and Rope Trick are very easy to abuse- they just throw all their spells but one of the above mentioned, teleport to safety or turtle away inside a safe pocket dimension, sleep up, and pop back in to attack. Granted, if a campaign is particularly time-sensitive, this isn't a valid option, but the fact remains- it happens a lot, which means that time-sensitive campaigns aren't happening in enough of a frequency to discourage the abuses overall.
I agree on the fighter, as I have played fighters successfully into epic, and found the reliable damage to be a real asset. However, had either of the casters or manifesters in those games felt the urge, anything I could have done would have been easily outclassed. And while the fighter can fight all day and never stop dealing consistent damage, the wizard doesn't have to. Sure, they run out of spells eventually, but the fact of the matter is that even a moderately well built wizard won't leave an enemy alive (or at least able to threaten him) long enough for that to be an issue. As a general rule of thumb for all casters and manifesters, going nova is never good, so a smart player knows how to get the most out of minimal usage of spells- and thanks to the general power level of the Transmutation, Conjuration, and Necromancy schools, all you need is a handful of spell slots to do a world of hurt to an encounter.
I remember reading a thread at the wizards site about a broken kobold of some sort and it was just disgusting!
I believe you are talking about Emperor Pun-Pun. I've talked about him in the past here. To call him "broken" would be like calling the movie Showgirls "bad". For the record, though, Pun-Pun never came up as a serious character, he was built as a means of testing a concept.
Ahh, see, thats one thing about our campaigns. They tend to be very time sensitive. There are often multiple events happening at the same time. Our main GM is very good at micro-managment and he has, in his mind, several events that are happening in the world at any given time and there is usually a lot of pressure on the party to acomplish our goals in a limited ammount of time.
We had this one massive melee, the scope was a little rediculous even and we were having to use seige rules at times. But there were about 20,000 orcs. The party didn't have to deal with all of them, of course, as we had gathered armies and this was the cresendo of a long chapter. But needless to say, the wizards of the party did run out of ammo and there were still many orcs left. Meanwhile, my paladin was still mounted on his bonded mount, doing nice riding manuvers and putting his musket to deadly use.
We don't usually have battles on that scale.. but many times while playing Cewellin, I've ran extremely low on spells and defenses, and it gets very challenging. I give a lot of credit to our main GM though.
Ahh, see, thats one thing about our campaigns. They tend to be very time sensitive. There are often multiple events happening at the same time. Our main GM is very good at micro-managment and he has, in his mind, several events that are happening in the world at any given time and there is usually a lot of pressure on the party to acomplish our goals in a limited ammount of time.
We had this one massive melee, the scope was a little rediculous even and we were having to use seige rules at times. But there were about 20,000 orcs. The party didn't have to deal with all of them, of course, as we had gathered armies and this was the cresendo of a long chapter. But needless to say, the wizards of the party did run out of ammo and there were still many orcs left. Meanwhile, my paladin was still mounted on his bonded mount, doing nice riding manuvers and putting his musket to deadly use.
We don't usually have battles on that scale.. but many times while playing Cewellin, I've ran extremely low on spells and defenses, and it gets very challenging. I give a lot of credit to our main GM though.
I have had the same problem with my nomad, Ahriman. There has been more than one occasion in which I was like "damn, I am out of power points!" But then, I tend to run heavy on the power usage in general- Ahriman is always flying here, teleporting there, timehopping this and that, so he tends to use them up quickly- and that's how a lot of players are. They play a wizard or spellcaster because they wanna be magical, dammit.
It's just when players come at the game with that "us vs. them" mentality, and look to take advantage of things that it becomes problematic. Running out of spells is usually pretty bad, particularly against a lot of foes. But the thing with D&D is that numbers pack more punch than strength most of the time. A party of weaker, but more numerous, foes will usuall always take down a single (or few) strong enemies. It's by this very virtue that a group of relative wimps (PCs) can take down dragons and fiends and the like. It when a wizard has full resources and enough support to make it an even fight that it becomes bad, because then the power of magic makes it not so even at that point.
Meanwhile, my campaigns are either time-sensitive, motion-oriented, or episodic. In all cases, PCs don't usually have the time to waste. If they are out doing something, it's because something needs to be done, and now. They don't have the luxury of being able to take a few days to finish a task.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[16:23] Alacar Leoricar: maybe if you do it'll make the porn more meaningful
Whee! Sorry to pull away from the D&D talk, but I feel like i had to announce that I'm on level 21, in the Climbing Trees part of Kingdom Hearts... whee ... I'm seriously starting to hate those damn monkeys lol...
They get easier as you fight em, Omna. You have to learn the proper timing to hit them as they claw at you so their blow is deflected. Then you can counter attack for a good kill.
As for all this discussion?
People play warrior classes even though they suck, and people play wizard classes even though they suck. They both suck for different reasons. But they're also both good.
Ultimately, D&D, and any gaming system for that matter, is completely dependent on the DM (or GM) and how they tweak the adventure at hand. There is almost never a vacuum test for class vs class. And there should never be. If there is, then we see balance issues. But the DM can change that. Because ultimately when it boils down to the core of the Core, the Core Rules are a set of well-designed guidelines for the DM to follow. I know I've edited stats for my enemies and NPCs to help the players shine, and I will continue to do so, even if it's a complete ignorance of the Core Rules. Because that's the point. I want my players to have a good challenge, but not an impossible one. I want my players to have fun and have their time in the limelight as a warrior, a rogue, a priest, or a wizard, or any combination therein. It doesn't matter. I want to have fun seeing them use their abilities.
I fully agree, Alacar. I think it's important to make the game fun. The balance issues in D&D only appear when the players want to look for them. If your players are exploiting game mechanics that badly, the problem is that your players are straying away from the true purpose of the game, fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Banner and avatar by me.
Official Character Sheet Shredder of DAMNIT
DAMNIT: I should never have to shred my own character sheet in frustration.
The best point made about power balance in D&D is Photon Eater's comment that many other games managed to balance magic and mundane abilities. It's too bad that there's no easy fix for it.
And it really is tiresome to hear people invoke "DM responsibility" as a solution to game imbalance. DMs should be responsible for balancing extraordinary situations and particular problems, not for tendencies built into the game.
And the fact that I like to complain about D&D3.5 so much is a sign that I really like it.
But I agree that we can't be all negative all of the time. So, something I like about D&D is the overarching organization of every single thing in the game according to level, in some form or another. They actually attempted the massive task of making every value type comparable.
Hello everyone sorry i haven't posted in awhile been really busy about clinicals... But i am so glad that one more week of it then i am done for the semester yay! I havent played ff12 that much though but i am getting ready to fight the king of bombs blah... Other then that i havent played any new rpgs lately. I'll cya all later.
Sweet! Congrats on being finished with your semester. How much further do you need before finishing all together?
About D&D. I'm about to go play some of it. I'm going to be playing a drow thief/mage
I just need two more semester then i am done with clinicals. Which is less then a year now which isnt that bad at all.
During the winter vacation i am going to finish enchanted arms though and i might finish final fantasy 12 before winter vacation but i doubt it since ill be really busy in my last week of clinicals for the semester.
This week's game is a Saturn-turned-Playstation classic that, predictably, was lost in the avalanche known as Final Fantasy. First in a short, but venerable series, that game is Grandia.
Grandia
Developed by Game Arts, published by SCEA
Released 9/30/99 for Playstation
Rated E
In America, when we hear the name "Grandia" most of us recall a plucky Dreamcast game starring a smart-mouthed mercenary and his adventures to stop an evil church from taking over the world. This, however, is the sequel to the original, quintessential Grandia. Released in Japan for the Saturn at the same time as Square's Final Fantasy VII, Grandia was met in its home country with some critical acclaim (and a 35 of 40 rating from Famitsu), but wasn't really considered for release in the US until Sony saw what RPGs could do over here. Immediately, Grandia was set on the assembly line for America and saw itself in our stores three years after its creation.
Grandia tells the story of fifteen-year-old Justin, a boy living in the town of Parm with his mother Lily and best friend Sue. Justin wants nothing more than to be an adventurer like his father and grandfather before him, seeing the world and discovering things long lost in the mists of time. Being so young, Justin's options are severely limited, but with the help of the local musem curator (the two are buddy-buddy), he finally gets his break; an invitation to the nearby Sult Ruins, where the military forces of Garlyle kingdom are amassing for an expedition. Justin jumps at the chance, and from then on he's swept up in an inexplicable fate that will lead him all over the world, even to others never before seen. Along the way, he'll forge unforgettable friendships and see sights that no mortal ever thought they would see.
This, in essence, is the very thing that makes the Grandia series - especially the original - so special. RPGs always go for a sense of awe and grand scale; you're travelling the world and usually trying to save it, after all. But where most RPGs kind of fall short of that goal after the first ten or fifteen hours of gameplay, Grandia picks up the pace and never lets up. Each country, continent, and city in the game has its own distinct culture and customs, as is the norm for Game Arts, and you can really see it in every little detail. Different flora and fauna, new and sometimes very unusual styles of dress and speech, and eclectic, unforgettable music all combine for a truly unique experience. You'll find yourself thinking exactly what Justin is saying whenever the party saunters into a town like New Parm or the secluded Gumbo village - "wow."
It's hard for RPGs to come up with original systems of combat and character development - even moreso these days when everything's seemingly been done before. Grandia, though, has always been the exception to this rule, especially when it comes to combat. There is no battle system, new or old, traditional or experimental, that can even come remotely close to how fun Grandia's batte system is. At first glance, you'll notice no real difference from other systems; in the corner of the screen is a meter measuring each participant's IP (initiative points) and how close they are to a new command. Cut and dry, of course. But it's in the myriad attack styles and their effects on combat that Grandia's battle mechanics truly shine. Certain abilities and attacks can "cancel" an enemy's action, sending their IP skyrocketing and making them wait forever to input another command. Got a Troll about to cast Burnflare on the whole party? Cancel him. I guarantee he'll forget what he was doing and try to bust heads instead. This little addition to the normal, traditional RPG formula makes battles infinitely more fun and engaging, really giving you the feeling that everything you're doing is entirely hands-on. It's also just incredibly fun to get everyone's timing just right and juggle that annoying boss for all he's worth, getting in about twenty hits before he can shoot off one. This is what makes battles fun, and more companies should look to Grandia and its small but significant innovations for some inspiration next time they're thinking "real time or turn based?"
It goes without saying since this is a Game Arts game, but Grandia's story really shines because of the characters. Every single moment of this game, you'll grow to love these people and what you've been through with them. Justin's can-do attitude, Feena's kindness and strength, Gadwin's nobility, Milda's country charm, and Liete's mystery and spirit. Everyone you meet in Grandia, good or bad, will leave a lasting impression on you, and you'll want to see them come back again and again so you can love 'em or hate 'em even more. This is an earmark of good storytelling and characterization, but like I said, what more can you expect from Game Arts?
Unfortunately, Grandia's a rare find. I highly recommend that if you find it lying around and have a PsX or Ps2 to enjoy it with, fork over that cash! You'll get over fifty hours of hard-fought but addictive battles, engaging characters, an incredible, inspiring soundtrack by veteran composer Noriyuki Iwadare, and generally what's considered a must-own for any RPGamer worth his or her salt. So what are you waiting for? Go on out and look for the End of the World, before it finds you!
That looks really great Ether. I will so pick it up if I find it. I hate those uber rare games though. I searched around for a few after doing some research and they were over 100 bucks for a ps1 game.
The cover art is really cute. I would love to see a cell shaded sequal.
I finished my drow. I changed him a little bit. This should be fun for closet 2nd fans and I'm guessing all of it will make sense to 3.5 lovers as well.
Merrix Xen'drik Religion - Follower of Elistree (Good drow goddess of swordplay, the moon, dancing and music) Chaotic Good Drow Fighter3/Mage2/Thief3 (Spell Filcher)
Str 16 Dex 20 Con 10 Int 18 Wis 14 Cha 15
54% Magic Resistance
Nice rolls!
Weapon Prof. Expertese - Darts Missle Weapon Style Shortsword Ambedexterity
Non-Weapon Prof Read/Write Dancing Etiquite Spellcraft Semantic Concealment Tactics of Magic Musical Instrument (flute) Gather Information
Languages Drow Faerun Common
I've always wanted to make a dart fighter, but hated the idea of cheesing it out with high strength and specialization. I think it fits perfectly for a stealthy, cosmopolitan drow. He is thematically a good version of the famous dark elf, Jaraxel from the Drizzt series. His thieving skills are focused on stealth and trap removal, which is perfect for a Spell Filcher. Spell Filchers are a special type of elven thief who specialize in disabling magical traps.
There are a couple of other Grandia games. Most notably Grandia 3 came out this last February and isn't all that hard to find. It's an excellent game, but far too short at about thirty hours. Actually, the first Grandia is the longest, which kind of sucks, but they're all great games so I don't complain.
I'd like to see the series go cel-shaded, too, actually. I'm hoping for a Grandia 4, maybe for the Wii, with cel-shaded graphics. I think they'd fit the style of the series incredibly well =)
*Blink* Joyd, that's a nigh-impossible question to answer. I can't really give you one straight answer, but I can give you a top five, maybe. Here's mine.
1. Koudelka - Doesn't take up a lot of time, very gritty and dark storyline, awesome characterization, good music, just fun.
2. Grandia - see this week's Underdog.
3. Valkyrie Profile - it's revolutionary, awesome, and Photon would kill me for not mentioning it.
4. Xenogears - OMG this needs no explanation.
5. Persona 2: Eternal Punishment - It's on the Top Five RPGs You've Never Played list for a reason, yo.
But if I had to choose one from that list, I'd go with Xenogears. SRSLY.
Joyd, might I suggest Wild Arms? A favorite of mine, in any case.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Sorry I haven't posted in a little while clinicals has been really stressful lately and i hope i will be able to pull through it wish me luck tommorrow everyone.
@RPGS: I am at the sochen cave palace right now in ff12 i played about 40 hours into it. ff12 is getting pretty hard though but I will finish it before january comes along. I haven't played it that much last time i played it was last sunday.
Wild arms is a great suggestion my dear mamelon.
Well I am going to get off and go take a shower so i will talk to you all later on here. Goodnight everyone!
I am playing my first monk, and I wanted to ask you all, what stats should I focus on?
He's going to be a straight up, martial arts monk. Should I focus on strength and con for damage and hitpoints? Or should I make my dex and wisdom the highest to boost his ac and stunning fist?
For me, the alignment system, designed wayyy back in 1st edition, is still holding strong for a good reason.
I will go deeper into my reasons why after class
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
There is balance in these games.
In the earlier levels, fighters are generally the most powerfull and able bodied class while wizards are by far the weakest. Arcane casters generally suck for a long time, but in the end game, they are by far the most versatile and potentially powerfull class.
It's no offense to anyone here at all, I promise, but all of this talk seems so wierd to me. My group very rarely ever has discussions about balance issues. I can remember every general topic, most of them have to deal with custom made classes.
The biggest one was second edition psionics. They are broken. It's common knowledge.
We have discussed the brokenness of my paladan Roland. Combining grand mastery with a musket and the paladins bonuses can be quite broken. He was also a combination of two powerfull custom kits (think PsC) that probably never should have existed together.
We had some problems with a particular elf archer, based off a custom made class we invented.
There was one player, who used to play in our group, who was simply a master at manipulating loopholes in wizard spells and also he perfected abusing the wish spell. At least in second edition, if you have an already powerfull wizard, who happens to lack morals, he can do some of the most broken things with cumulative uses of graft flesh, clone and magic jar. I know that one time, over the course many sessions and with much planning, he created the most rediculous cimera by grafting various powerfull magical creatures remains together, then cloned it, so that it was a whole, physical being enfused with various properties, used several wishes on the monstrosity (I'm not sure what he did with those), and then finished the process off by using magical jar so that the cimera became his body.
But generally, we just don't get into balance issues outside of rare and pecular characters. I wonder if third is more prone to enabling broken combinations. I do know that third edition was inspired largely by the Optional powers and abilities book which was printed near the end of second edition. My group dismissed these optional rules, because they welcomed power gaming. I don't know how far this extends into third though. Again, I'm not trying to sound condescending. I'm just combining the facts that my group rarely every experiences balance issues, even though we play with creative players in high level games. And that in third edition, balance issues seem to rise up often, and not only on our website.
The balance of "you be good on low levels, then suck on high, and I'll do the reverse" is frankly not all that acceptable, considering a plethora of other systems manage to avoid it.
See above.
That's just your group. I've been told by more than one 2e grognard that there were just as many balance issues in past editions.
Which is a glaring balance issue in 2e.
Balance issues come up for a variety of reasons. Perhaps because 3e is the first edition to be played exclusively in the internet age, common complaints that may have once been forgotten once the game ends are now logged on sites and forums everywhere. I argue that there aren't more balance issues in 3e, people are just more vocal about them.
Despite it's flaws, I think that 3e is a superior system in that it allows for so many options- any concept is viable with enough imagination and access to the right resources.
Is 3e the perfect system for all types of games? No, not at all. There are strictly better choices for different styles of games, but D&D does what it is intended to do quite well- create a combat-oriented fantasy game designed for party play, with plenty of potential for storytelling and battle tactics alike (Remember, D&D was created when Gary Gygax originally adapted the old war game Chainmail, so the game has roots deep in the wargaming scene).
I really do like 3.5, but as I have said many times before- I'm a game designer at heart, and a full-time DM. It's not only my job to pay attention to meta-game details, system inconsistencies, and balance issues, but it's an unchangeable detail of my personality. I look for problems. That doesn't mean I don't like it- after all, every system has problems. Sometimes those problems are what gives a game its charm. And luckily, in the case of D&D, you have so many options, you can choose to use or ignore any problematic class, feat, spell, or anything and it will be totally fine.
I really like 3.5- if I didn't, would I have spent close to a thousand dollars on books and materials to play it? Probably not.
Also: Psychoburner gets a +1 mace for the 100th post.
I do have a question about third though. Is it kindof like how magic metagaming has been over the years? You have a nearly limitless potential for decks, but the power advantages that a few combinations give tend to force players into certain builds to be on par. In magic, there are limitless potential deck combinations, but the metagame forces competitive players to either play pretty much pre-built decks or to specifically build their decks to answer the broken few net-decks. Is third the same?
Edit: The internet age point you make, Photon, is quite good. It carries over well to my magic analogy actually, because before the intenet age, there simply were no net decks to worry about.
I guess what I'm really asking is, is it that versatile considering that players don't want to be outclassed by broken combinations?
That's not meant to be snide nor rhetorical. I'm seriously curious.
I don't have many balance issues with my group, either- in fact, I've never had to worry about one of my own players busting the game open, with the noted exception of my younger brother, and that was because he's a notorious min-maxer who has the mutant power to look at a game, see all it's loopholes, and find the most innocuous way to exploit them.
Metagame is less of an issue in D&D in general, as each group is different, and has it's own metagame. However, in campaigns that tend to stay closer to RAW (rules as written), or campaigns that are particularly status quo, the issues arise. I have probably heard hundreds of complaints on the power of the wizard and cleric, and yet people still play other classes regardless. It's not so much that people feel forced to play power roles like the Cleric, it's more that players who choose not to are typically overshadowed by their companions- their companions who were for the most part pretty damn good at their chosen roles from the beginning.
The point is not that physical combat is better in early game- because it's not, really. Prismatic spray still trumps a well armed fighter when evaluated in a vacuum. The point is all non-magical roles in a party are made obsolete by about 12th level. That is the real issue, I feel- characters who want to become powerful presences in the world must become spellcasters after a fashion, or be happy to retire to the sidelines in perpetual irrelevance.
This is not a new occurance in third edition. This tends to be the case in all editions of D&D. Magic just carries more weight, which a lot of people find to be unfair.
3.5 is amazingly versatile. Certainly, some classes are clearly above and beyond the curve- but that doesn't stop people from playing weaker classes. It's not like MTG, where you need to try and build a tier 1 deck to be viable. Despite the fact that they are widely acknowledged as being inferior, people still play fighters, and samurai, and monks, and soulknives, and the whole lot of "suck" classes. And for the most part, the differences don't arise, but if you look at the system objectively (or play in a status quo game, where builds need to be somewhat competitively built to survive), the issues become apparent. Most of the time, people aren't that greatly affected by it.
But still, those of us that enjoy breaking a system down like to complain about it.
Thanks, thats a great explination, and it makes sense. It's relieving to know that groups can function in harmony and ignore potential brokenness. I remember reading a thread at the wizards site about a broken kobold of some sort and it was just disgusting!
About fighters: I've always felt that the true strength of a high level fighter comes into consistant power. In a long, drawn out melee, a wizard will run out of usefull spells eventually. The fighter though, is still out there, churning along, and never runs out of offensive potential. In short, burst encounters, the wizard can exaust a few recources to devistating effect, but in long, drawn out encounters, the wizard has to rely on guile and reserved use of powers. Especially considering the divine knowledge that a boss battle could be looming after a long dungeon crawl.
Wizards also have huge weaknesses. The biggest is the danger of an encounter durring the middle of the night. The wizard forgets his memorized spells. I often play spellcasters and that problem has happend more than enough to humble my opinion of the wizard. This also ties into another problem: reliance on time. A wizard needs 8 hours of sleep to memorize spells. If a big war campaign is going to start 7 hours from now, and a wizard is low in memorised spells, it can be a huge disadvantage.
This is all dependant on second edition rules, im not sure how sleeping and such effects wizards in 3.5
Magic Coffeehouse!
Come in, sit down, relax, get to know somebody!
Open Three and a Half Years as of October 19, 2009!
Banner by PurpleD and avatar/custom by Tanthalas
While that is true enough about the wizard, the fact is that it's not enough of a drawback. Prepared casting is more a strength than a weakness, and the potential of running out of spells is rarely a problem- because after all, to run out of spells, they would have needed to cast them first, and usually the casting leads to the killing of any real threats. The attack in the night scenario is bad for a wizard, but a fairly narrow circumstance- a DM can't realistically gun for the wizard each time he starts to doze off all Freddy Krueger, because it's heavy handed and unfair. Furthermore, a situation-based circumstance can't be considered a real weakness, any more than running dual lands can be considered a major weakness because your opponent may have LD or Blood Moon. Also, any spells a wizard had prepared before sleeping are still there, so he could also pack a fireball or two away just in case something went bump in the night.
In general, time is a non-issue for wizards because of some tricks they can exploit. Teleport and Rope Trick are very easy to abuse- they just throw all their spells but one of the above mentioned, teleport to safety or turtle away inside a safe pocket dimension, sleep up, and pop back in to attack. Granted, if a campaign is particularly time-sensitive, this isn't a valid option, but the fact remains- it happens a lot, which means that time-sensitive campaigns aren't happening in enough of a frequency to discourage the abuses overall.
I agree on the fighter, as I have played fighters successfully into epic, and found the reliable damage to be a real asset. However, had either of the casters or manifesters in those games felt the urge, anything I could have done would have been easily outclassed. And while the fighter can fight all day and never stop dealing consistent damage, the wizard doesn't have to. Sure, they run out of spells eventually, but the fact of the matter is that even a moderately well built wizard won't leave an enemy alive (or at least able to threaten him) long enough for that to be an issue. As a general rule of thumb for all casters and manifesters, going nova is never good, so a smart player knows how to get the most out of minimal usage of spells- and thanks to the general power level of the Transmutation, Conjuration, and Necromancy schools, all you need is a handful of spell slots to do a world of hurt to an encounter.
I believe you are talking about Emperor Pun-Pun. I've talked about him in the past here. To call him "broken" would be like calling the movie Showgirls "bad". For the record, though, Pun-Pun never came up as a serious character, he was built as a means of testing a concept.
We had this one massive melee, the scope was a little rediculous even and we were having to use seige rules at times. But there were about 20,000 orcs. The party didn't have to deal with all of them, of course, as we had gathered armies and this was the cresendo of a long chapter. But needless to say, the wizards of the party did run out of ammo and there were still many orcs left. Meanwhile, my paladin was still mounted on his bonded mount, doing nice riding manuvers and putting his musket to deadly use.
We don't usually have battles on that scale.. but many times while playing Cewellin, I've ran extremely low on spells and defenses, and it gets very challenging. I give a lot of credit to our main GM though.
I have had the same problem with my nomad, Ahriman. There has been more than one occasion in which I was like "damn, I am out of power points!" But then, I tend to run heavy on the power usage in general- Ahriman is always flying here, teleporting there, timehopping this and that, so he tends to use them up quickly- and that's how a lot of players are. They play a wizard or spellcaster because they wanna be magical, dammit.
It's just when players come at the game with that "us vs. them" mentality, and look to take advantage of things that it becomes problematic. Running out of spells is usually pretty bad, particularly against a lot of foes. But the thing with D&D is that numbers pack more punch than strength most of the time. A party of weaker, but more numerous, foes will usuall always take down a single (or few) strong enemies. It's by this very virtue that a group of relative wimps (PCs) can take down dragons and fiends and the like. It when a wizard has full resources and enough support to make it an even fight that it becomes bad, because then the power of magic makes it not so even at that point.
Meanwhile, my campaigns are either time-sensitive, motion-oriented, or episodic. In all cases, PCs don't usually have the time to waste. If they are out doing something, it's because something needs to be done, and now. They don't have the luxury of being able to take a few days to finish a task.
As for all this discussion?
People play warrior classes even though they suck, and people play wizard classes even though they suck. They both suck for different reasons. But they're also both good.
Ultimately, D&D, and any gaming system for that matter, is completely dependent on the DM (or GM) and how they tweak the adventure at hand. There is almost never a vacuum test for class vs class. And there should never be. If there is, then we see balance issues. But the DM can change that. Because ultimately when it boils down to the core of the Core, the Core Rules are a set of well-designed guidelines for the DM to follow. I know I've edited stats for my enemies and NPCs to help the players shine, and I will continue to do so, even if it's a complete ignorance of the Core Rules. Because that's the point. I want my players to have a good challenge, but not an impossible one. I want my players to have fun and have their time in the limelight as a warrior, a rogue, a priest, or a wizard, or any combination therein. It doesn't matter. I want to have fun seeing them use their abilities.
There's my 2 cents.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
And it really is tiresome to hear people invoke "DM responsibility" as a solution to game imbalance. DMs should be responsible for balancing extraordinary situations and particular problems, not for tendencies built into the game.
And the fact that I like to complain about D&D3.5 so much is a sign that I really like it.
But I agree that we can't be all negative all of the time. So, something I like about D&D is the overarching organization of every single thing in the game according to level, in some form or another. They actually attempted the massive task of making every value type comparable.
About D&D. I'm about to go play some of it.
I just need two more semester then i am done with clinicals.
During the winter vacation i am going to finish enchanted arms though and i might finish final fantasy 12 before winter vacation but i doubt it since ill be really busy in my last week of clinicals for the semester.
This week's game is a Saturn-turned-Playstation classic that, predictably, was lost in the avalanche known as Final Fantasy. First in a short, but venerable series, that game is Grandia.
Grandia
Developed by Game Arts, published by SCEA
Released 9/30/99 for Playstation
Rated E
In America, when we hear the name "Grandia" most of us recall a plucky Dreamcast game starring a smart-mouthed mercenary and his adventures to stop an evil church from taking over the world. This, however, is the sequel to the original, quintessential Grandia. Released in Japan for the Saturn at the same time as Square's Final Fantasy VII, Grandia was met in its home country with some critical acclaim (and a 35 of 40 rating from Famitsu), but wasn't really considered for release in the US until Sony saw what RPGs could do over here. Immediately, Grandia was set on the assembly line for America and saw itself in our stores three years after its creation.
Grandia tells the story of fifteen-year-old Justin, a boy living in the town of Parm with his mother Lily and best friend Sue. Justin wants nothing more than to be an adventurer like his father and grandfather before him, seeing the world and discovering things long lost in the mists of time. Being so young, Justin's options are severely limited, but with the help of the local musem curator (the two are buddy-buddy), he finally gets his break; an invitation to the nearby Sult Ruins, where the military forces of Garlyle kingdom are amassing for an expedition. Justin jumps at the chance, and from then on he's swept up in an inexplicable fate that will lead him all over the world, even to others never before seen. Along the way, he'll forge unforgettable friendships and see sights that no mortal ever thought they would see.
This, in essence, is the very thing that makes the Grandia series - especially the original - so special. RPGs always go for a sense of awe and grand scale; you're travelling the world and usually trying to save it, after all. But where most RPGs kind of fall short of that goal after the first ten or fifteen hours of gameplay, Grandia picks up the pace and never lets up. Each country, continent, and city in the game has its own distinct culture and customs, as is the norm for Game Arts, and you can really see it in every little detail. Different flora and fauna, new and sometimes very unusual styles of dress and speech, and eclectic, unforgettable music all combine for a truly unique experience. You'll find yourself thinking exactly what Justin is saying whenever the party saunters into a town like New Parm or the secluded Gumbo village - "wow."
It's hard for RPGs to come up with original systems of combat and character development - even moreso these days when everything's seemingly been done before. Grandia, though, has always been the exception to this rule, especially when it comes to combat. There is no battle system, new or old, traditional or experimental, that can even come remotely close to how fun Grandia's batte system is. At first glance, you'll notice no real difference from other systems; in the corner of the screen is a meter measuring each participant's IP (initiative points) and how close they are to a new command. Cut and dry, of course. But it's in the myriad attack styles and their effects on combat that Grandia's battle mechanics truly shine. Certain abilities and attacks can "cancel" an enemy's action, sending their IP skyrocketing and making them wait forever to input another command. Got a Troll about to cast Burnflare on the whole party? Cancel him. I guarantee he'll forget what he was doing and try to bust heads instead. This little addition to the normal, traditional RPG formula makes battles infinitely more fun and engaging, really giving you the feeling that everything you're doing is entirely hands-on. It's also just incredibly fun to get everyone's timing just right and juggle that annoying boss for all he's worth, getting in about twenty hits before he can shoot off one. This is what makes battles fun, and more companies should look to Grandia and its small but significant innovations for some inspiration next time they're thinking "real time or turn based?"
It goes without saying since this is a Game Arts game, but Grandia's story really shines because of the characters. Every single moment of this game, you'll grow to love these people and what you've been through with them. Justin's can-do attitude, Feena's kindness and strength, Gadwin's nobility, Milda's country charm, and Liete's mystery and spirit. Everyone you meet in Grandia, good or bad, will leave a lasting impression on you, and you'll want to see them come back again and again so you can love 'em or hate 'em even more. This is an earmark of good storytelling and characterization, but like I said, what more can you expect from Game Arts?
Unfortunately, Grandia's a rare find. I highly recommend that if you find it lying around and have a PsX or Ps2 to enjoy it with, fork over that cash! You'll get over fifty hours of hard-fought but addictive battles, engaging characters, an incredible, inspiring soundtrack by veteran composer Noriyuki Iwadare, and generally what's considered a must-own for any RPGamer worth his or her salt. So what are you waiting for? Go on out and look for the End of the World, before it finds you!
The cover art is really cute. I would love to see a cell shaded sequal.
I finished my drow. I changed him a little bit. This should be fun for closet 2nd fans and I'm guessing all of it will make sense to 3.5 lovers as well.
Merrix Xen'drik
Religion - Follower of Elistree (Good drow goddess of swordplay, the moon, dancing and music)
Chaotic Good Drow Fighter3/Mage2/Thief3 (Spell Filcher)
Str 16
Dex 20
Con 10
Int 18
Wis 14
Cha 15
54% Magic Resistance
Nice rolls!
Weapon Prof.
Expertese - Darts
Missle Weapon Style
Shortsword
Ambedexterity
Non-Weapon Prof
Read/Write
Dancing
Etiquite
Spellcraft
Semantic Concealment
Tactics of Magic
Musical Instrument (flute)
Gather Information
Languages
Drow
Faerun Common
I've always wanted to make a dart fighter, but hated the idea of cheesing it out with high strength and specialization. I think it fits perfectly for a stealthy, cosmopolitan drow. He is thematically a good version of the famous dark elf, Jaraxel from the Drizzt series. His thieving skills are focused on stealth and trap removal, which is perfect for a Spell Filcher. Spell Filchers are a special type of elven thief who specialize in disabling magical traps.
I'd like to see the series go cel-shaded, too, actually. I'm hoping for a Grandia 4, maybe for the Wii, with cel-shaded graphics. I think they'd fit the style of the series incredibly well =)
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
1. Koudelka - Doesn't take up a lot of time, very gritty and dark storyline, awesome characterization, good music, just fun.
2. Grandia - see this week's Underdog.
3. Valkyrie Profile - it's revolutionary, awesome, and Photon would kill me for not mentioning it.
4. Xenogears - OMG this needs no explanation.
5. Persona 2: Eternal Punishment - It's on the Top Five RPGs You've Never Played list for a reason, yo.
But if I had to choose one from that list, I'd go with Xenogears. SRSLY.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
@RPGS: I am at the sochen cave palace right now in ff12 i played about 40 hours into it. ff12 is getting pretty hard though but I will finish it before january comes along. I haven't played it that much last time i played it was last sunday.
Wild arms is a great suggestion my dear mamelon.
Well I am going to get off and go take a shower so i will talk to you all later on here.
I am playing my first monk, and I wanted to ask you all, what stats should I focus on?
He's going to be a straight up, martial arts monk. Should I focus on strength and con for damage and hitpoints? Or should I make my dex and wisdom the highest to boost his ac and stunning fist?