Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ptolemy18" data-source="post: 3750580" data-attributes="member: 24970">Heh. I guess you've caught me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I do prefer the low-fantasy aspect, and what I'm really saying is that I prefer D&amp;D to have the &quot;weak character/low fantasy&quot; option intact. In the existing rules, this is pretty much what it's like for the first 4 or 5 levels. Then it gradually transforms into increasingly high fantasy as the characters get stronger.I like this combination since, if I'm plotting a campaign, I can say &quot;Hmm... do I want this campaign to be primarily in low-fantasy fighting-the-tavern-brawlers mode, or do I want it to be primarily in high-fantasy teleporting-to-the-wizard's-fortress mode?&quot;When the designers of 4e were talking about the &quot;sweet spot&quot; of levels 4-14, I understand what they're talking about. The game *is* fun at those levels. But there's also cool roleplay options at levels 1-3 and levels 15+. I don't want them to buff up the low-level characters so much that you can't run a low-fantasy game in D&amp;D, and I don't want them to nerf the high-level characters (in other threads I'm hearing people say stuff like &quot;No teleport&quot;, &quot;No polymorph&quot;, &quot;No flying&quot;!?!?) so much that you can't run a really high-fantasy game in D&amp;D.And thas' pretty much what I'm talkin' about... I don't want the diversity of the game to be watered down by excessive concern for &quot;balance&quot;.Jason</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ptolemy18, post: 3750580, member: 24970"] Heh. I guess you've caught me. ;) I do prefer the low-fantasy aspect, and what I'm really saying is that I prefer D&D to have the "weak character/low fantasy" option intact. In the existing rules, this is pretty much what it's like for the first 4 or 5 levels. Then it gradually transforms into increasingly high fantasy as the characters get stronger. I like this combination since, if I'm plotting a campaign, I can say "Hmm... do I want this campaign to be primarily in low-fantasy fighting-the-tavern-brawlers mode, or do I want it to be primarily in high-fantasy teleporting-to-the-wizard's-fortress mode?" When the designers of 4e were talking about the "sweet spot" of levels 4-14, I understand what they're talking about. The game *is* fun at those levels. But there's also cool roleplay options at levels 1-3 and levels 15+. I don't want them to buff up the low-level characters so much that you can't run a low-fantasy game in D&D, and I don't want them to nerf the high-level characters (in other threads I'm hearing people say stuff like "No teleport", "No polymorph", "No flying"!?!?) so much that you can't run a really high-fantasy game in D&D. And thas' pretty much what I'm talkin' about... I don't want the diversity of the game to be watered down by excessive concern for "balance". Jason [/QUOTE]

Verification