Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MechaPilot" data-source="post: 7170319" data-attributes="member: 82779">Well, in fairness, if you assume that people are going to play across the full range of levels, then &quot;Campaign Balance&quot; (the term I use for balancing classes by making some better at early levels and others better at later levels) makes a certain amount of sense.However, campaign balance breaks down when people don't play across the whole range of levels.&nbsp; That, coupled with information that most campaigns don't reach the highest levels, is likely what prompted a change to &quot;Level Balance&quot; (where classes are balanced against other classes as long the characters are the same level).Also, campaign balance wasn't done away with right away.&nbsp; 3e used campaign balance.&nbsp; However, they also screwed it up by forgetting that the different XP tables per class were a necessary part of that kind of balance.&nbsp; It was 4e, and 5e to a lesser extent, that went for level balance by trying to take the characteristics of the &quot;sweet spot&quot; and applying them across the full range of levels.I agree that it caused problems and felt punitive.&nbsp; Had they given humans something as an ability other than &quot;can advance to any level&quot; then that might have been avoided.&nbsp; Even simply saying that humans advance faster than non-humans would have been a decent way to go.&nbsp; And, frankly, given the longevity of elves and dwarfs, would have made sense.&nbsp; Humans have less time, so they push themselves harder than the longer-lived races to achieve more in their limited life span.I think the class-based ability score requirements probably squashed the majority of player choice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MechaPilot, post: 7170319, member: 82779"] Well, in fairness, if you assume that people are going to play across the full range of levels, then "Campaign Balance" (the term I use for balancing classes by making some better at early levels and others better at later levels) makes a certain amount of sense. However, campaign balance breaks down when people don't play across the whole range of levels. That, coupled with information that most campaigns don't reach the highest levels, is likely what prompted a change to "Level Balance" (where classes are balanced against other classes as long the characters are the same level). Also, campaign balance wasn't done away with right away. 3e used campaign balance. However, they also screwed it up by forgetting that the different XP tables per class were a necessary part of that kind of balance. It was 4e, and 5e to a lesser extent, that went for level balance by trying to take the characteristics of the "sweet spot" and applying them across the full range of levels. I agree that it caused problems and felt punitive. Had they given humans something as an ability other than "can advance to any level" then that might have been avoided. Even simply saying that humans advance faster than non-humans would have been a decent way to go. And, frankly, given the longevity of elves and dwarfs, would have made sense. Humans have less time, so they push themselves harder than the longer-lived races to achieve more in their limited life span. I think the class-based ability score requirements probably squashed the majority of player choice. [/QUOTE]

Verification