Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 3111227" data-attributes="member: 19675">Sorry- I don't see it.  But if it makes you happy...  In all the games we played with Players Option 2Ed stuff, there was precisely one person who complained about PC construction.He opted for a cleric with good martial arts skills, a few powerful divine domains, and powerful arcane (Evocation or Conjuration- which one escapes me) magic, but couldn't wear armor.  His PC could kick but Shaolin style, or pound you from range with mighty magics.I, too, opted for a cleric.  Mine had medium armor and decent weapons, all of the minor domains, Aburation from the arcane side, and had no turning ability.Same number of points spent, of course.He griped at how many spells my PC had, that I could wear armor and swing a sword- called him "Superman."  Never mind that of the entire spell list the PC had access to, only 3 were offensive (and one of those was Bull's Strength); that undead were as big a problem for me as for the party's rogue; or that where his PC was so self-contained he could wade into combat without fear, my guy was a sitting duck if disarmed.  He was a buffer, not a fighter...which was proved 2 months later.  He wouldn't shut up, so I tore the character sheet up in his face, and ran a straight thief.  I still had my design notes, however, and resurrected the concept for another campaign.  "Superman" was isolated from the party, and died in the first round of combat. It was what it was.  We played it, we had fun. I'm no worshipper at the altar of balance.  IME, balance is a useful goal for game design, but doesn't have to be perfect to have a good game.  A few degrees off in any direction is fine by me.   Unless I see something egregiously wrong with a game, I don't bother even considering the concept of balance.And I saw nothing egregiously wrong.  Nobody in our group tried to make a fighter using paladin points.  They could have, but they didn't.  It was a non-issue for us.That said, I had no problems as a player or GM with RIFTS, where one player could play a Glitterboy (essentially, a guy with his own small mecha) and another could play a Vagabond (exactly what it sounds like).  Role playing games are (for me, at least) about playing roles you want to play, not about being equally über in combat or what have you.And no, point based systems are no better balanced than level/class systems.  You give 3 players the same number of points in something like GURPS or HERO, and you can see PCs with wildly different capabilities and weaknesses.  I've been playing HERO since its initial release, and I'm pretty sure I can squeeze more out of a point in that system than most.  However, my inner munchkin is on a pretty tight leash, so I only use my powers for goodness and light...</blockquote>

Verification