Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BobTheNob" data-source="post: 5825830" data-attributes="member: 82425">...and there it is. Absolutely.Though...most people, when you talk about balance, will obsess with balance being a "combat caveat". With it being a holy grail which will require classes to have "combat roles" and that all abilities use a common "power" mechanic.As good as 4e was at what it did, I thought it missed the point. Having ubiquitous mechanics and combat equality was never what table top rpgs were about. So it achieved what it set out to do, but it set out to achieve the wrong thing.I find the whole use of the word "balanced" to be misleading. It draws you toward focusing on ensuring everyone works at everything and away from the things game design should focus on : encouraging creativity, characters which are TRUELY unique, allowing players to effectively play whatever their hearts desire, even if it is a bit of a turkey come fight time.If I look back over my play experiences over time and think of the moments I remember most fondly, I dont remember when I had the biggest number and my fireball killed everything in one hit...I remember the moments when I WASNT able to handle the situation with what I had and had to think about how to beat that.Again, Screw class Balance...focus on class=interesting.</blockquote>