![]() ![]() Such as - no one liking being a caster whose spells are constantly disrupted, and when they do get to cast them they end up facing fixed percentage** Magic Resistance and enemies that saved X% of the time, regardless. They also just did some things like realizing that X in 2e was widely considered unfun, so changed it to something else without reassessing whether the new version would then be unbalancing. suggest that they really thought that whatever was a problem in 2e would be the problem in 3e. Just how much (and how many ways) they tried to make sure extra attacks didn't run away with the game - no more than 5' step to get multiple attacks, massive feat trees for two-weapon fighting, amulet of mighty fists* costing 3x what an equivalent magic weapon would cost, etc. ![]() They just usually get dwarfed in the discussion by the larger concerns like the devs bizarrely picking on small races or them not fixing spellcaster vs. There were subtle little quality of life changes like that. With 3.5, they (presumably thinking games with energy weapons were more fun than everyone just chasing pluses) changed it so that Damage Reduction was more like '15/magic' and thus any magic weapon would work, (and the flaming would just be a overall plus to the gp cost, kinda solving the problem twice). ![]() Thus there was a strong incentive to always just take the pluses. However, enemies might have Damage Reduction of '30/+2', against which the +1 flaming sword would not penetrate. One I remember is: in 3.0, getting a special ability on a magic weapon would cost pluses, so a +1 flaming sword would effectively count as +2, for instance (in gp cost, level needed to make, whether it counted as epic, etc.). ![]() There were some other systemic or conceptual changes as well. Once we figure what the core ideas that really make D&D.D&D.the rest of the game can follow. Instead of trying to balance it completely, let's just try to make it appeal to people and figure out what the core of D&D is. With 5e they finally said.we keep trying to balance the game, but that doesn't really make it fun. They found out that many people prefer the a more open game than what 4e brought.ĥe was their answer to that. Then it became crazy again.Ĥe was the answer to that. It probably worked for around 3-6 months. This unexpectedly meant that there were players out there that found these new loopholes to create crazy chaotic unbalanced insanity in the game.ģ.5 was their attempt to bring balance back to the game. They didn't expect that it would be the RULES changing to feel of the game and the way people saw how it could be played. They didn't expect people to analyze the rules and then change the way they played accordingly. They closed several loopholes for power gamers and munchkins that were in 2e, only to open a HORDE of loopholes for them in 3e. The problem, they changed so many rules that it was nothing LIKE 2e in how it could be used and abused. They recreated it somewhat with 3.5, but that relied a lot more on circumstantial situations and DM decisions.ģe was made on the idea that it would run like 2e. Yes, this is one of the major things stated. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |