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="Ridley's Cohort" data-source="post: 3118253" data-attributes="member: 545">As a generalization, you would be wrong.  There are good mechanical reasons for choosing a dagger in 3e.  They are just not compelling to most PCs most of the time.  But a dagger is attractive a few PCs all or most of the time, and most PCs in a few not exactly rare scenarios.IME balanced design has tremendous advantages at no or little cost.  It is a big time saver for the DM.  It enhances the enjoyment of the game for those players who would like to explore character concepts without being forced to make a very large sacrifice in mechanical effectiveness.It is entirely possible that balanced design has no benefit to a particular player or even a particular group.  So?  What would be the downside?But for those who could see a benefit, the payout can be very, very big.***I have a specific real life example.  I was making a character for a 2e campaign.  As a fan of the Arthurian tales, I wanted to play a "knight in shining armor".  The DM thought this was a fine idea and would fit the party & campaign like a glove.  How about a Paladin?  Sure, I will give it a try.The roleplaying parts worked out great.  Both myself and the DM enjoyed that part.The other parts, the combat, sucked completely.While my comrades were Elven 18/XX Str Fighter/Wizards and similar ilk, my Human Paladin had to put his best stat in Cha, so I barely had sufficient Str to get a tiny bonus or even wear my heavy armor.But once the combat began for me it was boring or frustrating or worse.  I was the 5th level Fighter-type slugging it alongside a bunch of 4/4 multiclasses, but really I would have need to be at least 2 more levels higher than that to even carry my weight.  I tried to stick it out.  Tried to figure out how different equipment or rejiggering stats a little might help.  It was hopeless.  The double whammy of a mechanically poorly designed multiclassing system and a mechanically poorly designed Paladin class was just absurd.I told the DM that he either needed to revamp the Paladin class rules or I would have to abandon the character.  Or I would have to hang back and let the other PCs do all the real fighting -- I would use my bow.  Being in the thick of combat was too integral to the character concept, heck, it is practically required by the class itself.  And hanging back would create all kinds of stupid intra-party friction.The DM had to either decide lose a character that he enjoyed having in the campaign, or spend a bunch of time making houserules that he really did not want to have to make.  That is a real cost of unbalanced design.And I spent several hours of game where I could have easily been having great fun being frustrated instead.  That is a real cost of unbalanced design.My now 3.5 Paladin is a blast to play.  He has his strengths.  He has his weaknesses.  Good fun all around.***I know that balanced designed has been a boon for me and my play group, and I am sure that it has been for others.  Whether that would even cover the majority I do not claim to know nor care.I do not see what the downsides would be.  If you are really are the kind of player/DM who not stoop to care about such tawdry things as balance, I find more than a little difficult to believe there could be a downside.  Surely you are Fred Astaire when it comes to dancing past rules quirks, yes?</blockquote>

Verification