Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Miyagi" data-source="post: 5826168" data-attributes="member: 6689011"><p>This still worries me. I could actually have fun either way - the game where everyone has something good to do in each of the three 'pillars' is my ideal game; the game where individual players can sacrifice strength in one pillar for ability in another would be fine, too, though I wouldn't like it as much.</p><p> </p><p>I don't see that as the real choice, though, because it has never been that way. 3E and 4E came closest to creating what I like as an ideal, but failed; editions before that were balanced by either having almost no rules at all in areas of the game outside combat, or by having so few options at any particular time that balance was relatively easy to achieve.</p><p> </p><p>The real choice, in practical terms, is between classes relatively balanced in all three pillars, but not equally flexible or powerful, and classes in which one area is strong to the detriment of others. This latter option really looks ugly in most games thus far, though - 3E's fighter was good in combat for a while, and terrible at everything else that wasn't simply made up without rules, whereas 3E's druid was as good in combat as the fighter, and spectacularly better at everything else. Heck, even a rogue in 3E could be as strong a fighter as the fighter, and still have a whole bag of tricks.</p><p> </p><p>Nevermind character classes that could just do everything. As far back as 2E, we could see how the wizard made the thief basically irrelevant after level 7. A system that made characters such that players could trade strength in one area for strength in another would need to start with roughly equal capacity in all areas, or an equal number of strengths and weaknesses.</p><p> </p><p>Even then, the way D&D is often played, combat takes most of the spotlight, so characters with better combat capability are going to spend more time in that spotlight. That's part of why I think there should be more rules in the other areas - more rule attention and more things to do equal a greater sharing of spotlight, and more variance of character types and approaches.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Miyagi, post: 5826168, member: 6689011"] This still worries me. I could actually have fun either way - the game where everyone has something good to do in each of the three 'pillars' is my ideal game; the game where individual players can sacrifice strength in one pillar for ability in another would be fine, too, though I wouldn't like it as much. I don't see that as the real choice, though, because it has never been that way. 3E and 4E came closest to creating what I like as an ideal, but failed; editions before that were balanced by either having almost no rules at all in areas of the game outside combat, or by having so few options at any particular time that balance was relatively easy to achieve. The real choice, in practical terms, is between classes relatively balanced in all three pillars, but not equally flexible or powerful, and classes in which one area is strong to the detriment of others. This latter option really looks ugly in most games thus far, though - 3E's fighter was good in combat for a while, and terrible at everything else that wasn't simply made up without rules, whereas 3E's druid was as good in combat as the fighter, and spectacularly better at everything else. Heck, even a rogue in 3E could be as strong a fighter as the fighter, and still have a whole bag of tricks. Nevermind character classes that could just do everything. As far back as 2E, we could see how the wizard made the thief basically irrelevant after level 7. A system that made characters such that players could trade strength in one area for strength in another would need to start with roughly equal capacity in all areas, or an equal number of strengths and weaknesses. Even then, the way D&D is often played, combat takes most of the spotlight, so characters with better combat capability are going to spend more time in that spotlight. That's part of why I think there should be more rules in the other areas - more rule attention and more things to do equal a greater sharing of spotlight, and more variance of character types and approaches. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D
Top