Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gammadoodler" data-source="post: 8485887" data-attributes="member: 6914290">I was actually going to circle back to address this anyway. I think it's a difference in opinion regarding design process.One way to go about it is to start with character thematics and use that to inform what the character is capable of (e.g. a wire-fu character should be able to fly).Another way to go about it us to start with character capabilities and use those to build out thematics. (e.g. a character can fly, what reasons might exist for that capability).The second method (in my opinion) is way easier to &quot;balance&quot; and offers a lot more freedom in the potential themes you can explore. At the end of the day, it's much more important what the character can do, than why they can do it.Consider two characters. Both can slice through diamonds (or whatever) with their sword. One is &quot;magic&quot;, and one is a mundane but badass &quot;master swordsman&quot;. Is one theme better than the other?Conversely, if one character is &quot;magic&quot; and one is a &quot;master swordsman&quot;, are they equally likely to be able to slice through those diamonds (or whatever). If they aren't .. why?This is the basic difference between building a martial character in 5e vs. PF2e. In PF2e, your decision points are what you want your character to be able to do. In 5e, with limited exceptions, your decision points are about who you want your character to be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gammadoodler, post: 8485887, member: 6914290"] I was actually going to circle back to address this anyway. I think it's a difference in opinion regarding design process. One way to go about it is to start with character thematics and use that to inform what the character is capable of (e.g. a wire-fu character should be able to fly). Another way to go about it us to start with character capabilities and use those to build out thematics. (e.g. a character can fly, what reasons might exist for that capability). The second method (in my opinion) is way easier to "balance" and offers a lot more freedom in the potential themes you can explore. At the end of the day, it's much more important what the character can do, than why they can do it. Consider two characters. Both can slice through diamonds (or whatever) with their sword. One is "magic", and one is a mundane but badass "master swordsman". Is one theme better than the other? Conversely, if one character is "magic" and one is a "master swordsman", are they equally likely to be able to slice through those diamonds (or whatever). If they aren't .. why? This is the basic difference between building a martial character in 5e vs. PF2e. In PF2e, your decision points are what you want your character to be able to do. In 5e, with limited exceptions, your decision points are about who you want your character to be. [/QUOTE]

Verification