Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5137105" data-attributes="member: 64209">To reply regarding balance (and with respect to piratecat and his warning):&nbsp;Take the base class from 3e that is most imbalanced. Remove it from the game. Is the game better?&nbsp;Take the base class from 4e that is most imbalanced. Remove it from the game. Is the game better?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In my opinion, the answer to these questions would be no. No the game is not better...but to some of you, it may be.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ok then, let's do a flowchart...If no, stop and add the class back in. If yes repeat until no.&nbsp;&nbsp;If the game keeps getting better by removing the &quot;most imbalanced&quot; class...then eventually you play a game with all the same class...the &quot;least imbalanced&quot; one...which need not be the weakest. Arguably, in 3e, the bard was &quot;imbalanced&quot; due to weakness....It was, perhaps, further from (below) the median than the more powerful classes were above.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Note that the OP doesn't seem to discuss the lower end of balance, but I'd like to add that into the equation. What if I like imbalance because I want to play a &quot;weak&quot; character? What if I want suboptimal choices on purpose to play the &quot;squire&quot; of a friend? &nbsp;I wonder if a &quot;well balanced system&quot; would allow for poor choices to even be made? Or would such a system have &quot;no mistakes/low end balance&quot; built in?&nbsp;A personal note was that in second edition/AD&amp;D, my first character was a Fremlin (friendly gremlin of sorts) Wild Mage. He was a pc, but acted entirely like the party wizard's familiar. He also started 6 levels behind the rest of the party and &quot;caught up&quot; to being only 2 levels behind when the game ended. He was a blast to play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aberzanzorax, post: 5137105, member: 64209"] To reply regarding balance (and with respect to piratecat and his warning): Take the base class from 3e that is most imbalanced. Remove it from the game. Is the game better? Take the base class from 4e that is most imbalanced. Remove it from the game. Is the game better? In my opinion, the answer to these questions would be no. No the game is not better...but to some of you, it may be. Ok then, let's do a flowchart...If no, stop and add the class back in. If yes repeat until no. If the game keeps getting better by removing the "most imbalanced" class...then eventually you play a game with all the same class...the "least imbalanced" one...which need not be the weakest. Arguably, in 3e, the bard was "imbalanced" due to weakness....It was, perhaps, further from (below) the median than the more powerful classes were above. Note that the OP doesn't seem to discuss the lower end of balance, but I'd like to add that into the equation. What if I like imbalance because I want to play a "weak" character? What if I want suboptimal choices on purpose to play the "squire" of a friend? I wonder if a "well balanced system" would allow for poor choices to even be made? Or would such a system have "no mistakes/low end balance" built in? A personal note was that in second edition/AD&D, my first character was a Fremlin (friendly gremlin of sorts) Wild Mage. He was a pc, but acted entirely like the party wizard's familiar. He also started 6 levels behind the rest of the party and "caught up" to being only 2 levels behind when the game ended. He was a blast to play. [/QUOTE]

Verification