Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5913812" data-attributes="member: 996">Yes.  I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm not sure if I'm alone in being appalled rather than excited by the blithe return to what we might call "serial balance."  Rather than have reasonable balance, you have a theoretical 'eventually you'll have your time in the sun' approach.  In AD&D, if you were a 1st level magic-user in a campaign that rarely ever hit 3rd level, the theoretical power you'd enjoy at 5th or 8th or 12th level didn't in any way 'balance' your 1-4 hit points or your randomly generated offensive spell being Affect Normal Fires instead of Sleep.  In 3e, the fact that your fighter could perform just as well in the 8th combat of the day as the 1st didn't really matter when everyone was just nova'ing and retiring the Rope Trick to charge up.Characters shining more at one moment than another isn't something you need to design into the game.  It's inevitable.  Sometimes a player will be on the ball or have hot dice or have just the right combo for the circumstance and he'll have a moment of awesome.  There's no need to hamstring everyone else, or hamstring each class in some (or most) broad circumstances to 'balance' them being overwhelmingly good in a given one.  Balancing an RPG doesn't give you a 'samey' one-note game, it gives you a varied gaming experience, because the very nature of RPGs puts a lot of variables into the equation.</blockquote>

Verification