Black_Kaioshin
First Post
I mean the same statistically, not the same background/personality wise. And DM's are more broken then players are.
Annoyed with the Nerf Squad
- Thread starter Black_Kaioshin
- Start date
Lord Pendragon
First Post
Re: random stat rolling. Half of the time, I love it. That's when I'm the one who rolled the 18 18 16 15 15 12. Half of the time I hate it. That's when I'm the one who rolled the 14 12 11 11 10 7. And when I love it, someone else is hating it, so I prefer to just go with point-buy from the get-go. Everyone gets to start with the same potential, arranged to taste.
After all, random stats can be as unequal as starting off one party member with a Ring of Wizardry, while another gets bupkiss.
As far as the nerf-squad goes, I doubt I'm a member. I am usually open to most ideas/prestige classes/spells. On the other hand, I don't like things that are blatantly unbalanced, because it once again favors one character over another. If Willie the Wizard gets Unconditional Destruction as a 1st-level spell, why should Freddy the Fighter even bother showing up? The characters need to be relatively balanced, so that everyone has a chance be the hero in his own way.
As another poster already said, balanced doesn't mean identical. It doesn't even mean having the same damage potential. But in the course of the game, Big Picture, each character should be as challenged, and as often-spotlighted, as the others.
After all, random stats can be as unequal as starting off one party member with a Ring of Wizardry, while another gets bupkiss.
As far as the nerf-squad goes, I doubt I'm a member. I am usually open to most ideas/prestige classes/spells. On the other hand, I don't like things that are blatantly unbalanced, because it once again favors one character over another. If Willie the Wizard gets Unconditional Destruction as a 1st-level spell, why should Freddy the Fighter even bother showing up? The characters need to be relatively balanced, so that everyone has a chance be the hero in his own way.
As another poster already said, balanced doesn't mean identical. It doesn't even mean having the same damage potential. But in the course of the game, Big Picture, each character should be as challenged, and as often-spotlighted, as the others.
Dark Jezter
First Post
The Nerf Squad!
dreaded_beast
First Post
For myself, I can understand the need for balance and the DM's right to make decisions about how he wants his game to be run.
On the other hand, from a player perspective, "nerfing" is usually not something to look forward to. In the player's mind, it sometimes feels as if they are being "punished" for coming up with an interesting or "cool new way" to handle a situation using the rules "as is". Sometimes, it is "unbalanced" for the particular campaign they are in, somtimes it is not.
In my opinion, I believe that a major part of what is considered "balanced" or "broken" lies in the playstyle/campaign of the players and DM. For example, the tumble rules "as is" in the PHB may be perfectly fine in one campaign, but for another, the DM may decide they are "broken" and may opt to use a variant rule such as the one in Arcana Unearthed.
My personal gripe is when DMs wish to "nerf" a rule, based not on an obvious game breaking mechanic, but based on their own "opinion" on how a particular rule/skill/spell should be handled regardless of "balance". For example, a DM wishing to change the damage of a particular weapon, not because it is actually unbalancing the campaign, but because the DM feels that based on the description and his perceptions of said weapon, it should be weaker. Hopefully this makes some sort of sense and you can get the general idea. Maybe somewhat can better articulate what I am trying to say?
Anyways, although I understand and respect a DMs right to be the final decision maker in a campaign, that doesn't necesarrily mean I have to agree or like it. I will go along with it, but don't expect me to say the DM is right.
On the other hand, from a player perspective, "nerfing" is usually not something to look forward to. In the player's mind, it sometimes feels as if they are being "punished" for coming up with an interesting or "cool new way" to handle a situation using the rules "as is". Sometimes, it is "unbalanced" for the particular campaign they are in, somtimes it is not.
In my opinion, I believe that a major part of what is considered "balanced" or "broken" lies in the playstyle/campaign of the players and DM. For example, the tumble rules "as is" in the PHB may be perfectly fine in one campaign, but for another, the DM may decide they are "broken" and may opt to use a variant rule such as the one in Arcana Unearthed.
My personal gripe is when DMs wish to "nerf" a rule, based not on an obvious game breaking mechanic, but based on their own "opinion" on how a particular rule/skill/spell should be handled regardless of "balance". For example, a DM wishing to change the damage of a particular weapon, not because it is actually unbalancing the campaign, but because the DM feels that based on the description and his perceptions of said weapon, it should be weaker. Hopefully this makes some sort of sense and you can get the general idea. Maybe somewhat can better articulate what I am trying to say?
Anyways, although I understand and respect a DMs right to be the final decision maker in a campaign, that doesn't necesarrily mean I have to agree or like it. I will go along with it, but don't expect me to say the DM is right.
Inconsequenti-AL
Breaks Games
Dark Jezter said:
Wah! They look scary. Really hope I'm not using any rules I shouldn't! I don't wanna mess with them.
Do I need to tell them when my game is? Or are they 'suprise and fear' types?
Black_Kaioshin
First Post
Yikes!! I thought I just made up the name. I didn't know such a squad actually exists!! 
Similar Threads
