Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mort" data-source="post: 2988035" data-attributes="member: 762">I'll have to respectfully disagree with this entire post. I've been playing and DMing since 1986 and have been DMing 3e since it came out so I'm hardly a n00b DM. I try to be as acceptable as possible, but I'm hardly spineless and certain things are an absolute no go in my game (recent example: PC frenzied berserker).And you know what, I love the fact the 3e and 3.5 at least try to balance things out - it makes things that much easier for me because I don't have to do it so much myself. Anything that makes things easier for me (I'm married with a very demanding job) is good. I DM'd RIFTS for several years and it was a balance nightmare - there wasn't even an attempt made at balance. Things that wouldn't even phase one character would wipe out several of the others, and many a character that was good in combat also had an edge outside it. I also played, and when the DM said pick a character you like; I ended up with a god among men (Atlantean undead slayer). This gave the DM fits because anything that could remotely challenge me would wipe out the rest of the party in a matter of seconds. I voluntarily switched characters because it was obvious the other players were not having fun..The key to "balance" is simply making sure that everyone in the party is capable of significantly contributing in a continuing and meaningful way - the current edition attempts to facilitate this, I can't see how that's a bad thing.</blockquote>

Verification