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="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 1643229" data-attributes="member: 15999">Another kind of balance is the balance between options.  In 2E, the longsword was flat-out better than the battle-axe.  So, few fighters ever carried a battle-axe.  Just about all of them carried a longsword (or, more commonly after Complete Book of Fighters, 2 longswords).  3E fixed that by ensuring that there was no One Best Option (and then fixed its own error of the mercurial greatsword).Spells have frequently had the problem of One Best Option, which can normally be solved by bumping up spell levels or by adding competing options.  3.5 beefed up Shocking Grasp to the point where it, as a touch spell, can plausibly compete with the no-hit-roll nothing-resistant ranged attack of Magic Missile (before, SG did less damage at levels 5 and 7-12; now, it does equal or more at all levels).  Haste was fixed so that it is still useful, but no longer the automatic "must-have" spell.This doesn't matter to some people.  Some players, and even some designers think it's fine for there to be one option that is simply better than all others.  Myself, I like a little more variety in the tactics and aesthetics of the game, so I prefer having balance between options.  I don't mind there being some options and feats that are less useful than others, but I just don't like seeing other options that are so optimal that they always dominate.  I'm sketching out racial variants for a game (28-pt buy, with most races including humans getting a net +2 or a strong +2/-2), and I've been trying to do it in such a way that no sub-race is the automatic best choice for any class.</blockquote>

Verification