Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 5784145" data-attributes="member: 53980">I think it's possible to have balance without uniformity.For example, assume that a fighter is primarily at-will based, while a wizard is daily-oriented. There's significant room for variation, because a daily ability will logically be more effective than an at will, but the overall impact on the adventure can be equitable (which is true of Essentials).Of course, the counter to this is that the wizard can then open with his daily spell and trivialize the encounter for the fighter. One answer to that is to simply not make daily spells that powerful. Another would be to give the wizard an incentive to hold his daily until later in the fight. Perhaps the wizard's spell becomes more powerful based on how many rounds he waits to use it (this could be rationalized as the mage gathering mana to boost his spell). Thus, rather than acting as the party's glass cannon, the wizard would be most effective as a safety net, rescuing encounters that have gone south due to bad luck or what have you.As for your idea of a threshold, it's not a bad idea, but I think it would better serve as an optional system. I don't think it would really fix the issues that folks have with uniformity, though it'd probably make for an even more balanced system than 4e. I think you can have balance without uniformity, but you can't have back or front end uniformity for that to be so.</blockquote>