Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zinovia" data-source="post: 5135760" data-attributes="member: 57373">"Balance" means different things to different people.  As is so often the case, we're not using the word in quite the same way.  Some feel that balance is equivalent to a lack of distintive flavorful options and the freedom to do what they want with their character concept.  I don't agree that balance forces this.  If you want the freedom to do or be *anything*, then don't play a class and level-based system; use one that is skills based and all point buy.  Class-based systems like D&D encourage the playing of archetypes, and that is what they are good at.  GURPS and the like are better if you want ultimate freedom in how you build your character.  Balance can mean having characters that are all competent, but not all the same.  My 3.5 rogue started out 2 points worse in BAB than the paladin at level 1, and wound up 8 points worse at 15th level, with half the number of attacks per round, as well as lacking most of my damage against oozes, constructs, undead, etc.  He hit on a 2 when I needed a 10.  By that point, there wasn't anything my character could do out of combat that a wizard couldn't do better.  So how is that balanced?  How is it more fun or flavorful?  When does that character get to shine?  It's not a lack of opportunities placed by the DM; his hands are tied.  The system itself forces this discrepancy because by that level there isn't anything the character is good at that someone else can't do as well or better.  It's unbalanced. A claim has been made that everyone is good at everything in 4E.  It's true that there isn't a 25 point discrepancy in skill values, but you still wind up at higher levels with a substantial difference between skills someone is good at, and skills they aren't, and there are still things that can only be done if you are trained in a given skill.  The charisma based character with the right background and trained in diplomacy can easily have a bonus of 18 or greater (up to 22 with a feat and a starting 18 pre-racial bonus in CHA) at 11th level, vs someone who isn't good at it, and has a 4 at the same level. Just because you get your half-level to skills doesn't mean you're *good* at them.  You just suck less as you level up, and it doesn't by any means keep pace with the characters that specialize in that skill.  It's ironic that there are some people who feel even that gap is too much, and have made house-rules so that you don't keep getting relatively better at your "good" skills than your companions, while others feel it isn't enough of a gap and everyone is good at everything.    Balance is too often seen as synonymous with bland homogeneity, and it's in that context that it is seen as negative and something to be avoided.  I use it to mean "Not sucking at everything compared to the other characters in the group" and thus see it in a positive light.  Balance is as balance does.</blockquote>

Verification