Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JonM" data-source="post: 7170215" data-attributes="member: 6796515">Hmmm....  Seems to me that you're kind of disproving your own point. The averaging idea is implicit in your own statement, i.e. you are effectively saying that, on the average, "being weak at lower levels balances out with the great power they get at upper levels" (your words, not mine). Read without that clause or in any other context, you are effectively saying that the class is balanced because it is unbalanced at 1st level (too weak), unbalanced at 2nd level (too weak) ... unbalanced but in a different way at 14th level (too strong), unbalanced but in a different way at 15th level (too strong), etc. That makes no sense at all. In fact, MUs are really only balanced - kind of - for a couple of levels somewhere in the middle, unless you do look at it as some kind of average across all levels. Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too.And none of this addresses the fact that the MU may never even make it to a higher level, because of death, retirement or whatever. What is balancing out your low level wimpiness, then? Unless you subscribe to the notion that it is "balanced" on a sort of macro level by all the other NPC MUs who will get past that point. If so, then Arilyn nailed it with her demographics comment. Or do you assume that it's "balanced" because the player's next character might do better? (Assuming she plays again. And she plays an MU. And gets further next time.) 'Cause, if so, well.... ugh. Just... ugh. That is truly absurd game design.And, as Arilyn pointed out, what about the poor halfling fighter? How can being stuck at 4th level possibly be considered balanced, when the rest of the group is, say, 12th level? There will never be any point in the halfling's career that he will be terrifyingly powerful enough to balance that out. And, even if there was, it would only be through the very averaging process you were denying. And it would still be terrible game design.At the end of the day, I just don't get your argument. How can having classes/levels/whatever that are unbalanced for some portion of the game and then unbalanced in the opposite direction for another portion ever equal balance on the grand scale and good game design? And if you are looking at it on some sort of macro scale, involving thousands of other similar non-player characters... Well... why? The players are using their own characters, not those faceless hordes, so that's where any balance mechanics should focus. That's just common sense game design. Otherwise, as Arilyn said, you're talking demographics, not balance.As for the "if you don't like it, ignore it" comment... Well, obviously. But I got the impression that this conversation is about the RAW, not somebody's house rules. That, too, seemed to be implicit.</blockquote>

Verification