Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5600190" data-attributes="member: 71571">The thing is, the system was always designed to make weapon type matter in more than simple damage stats.  Weapon specialization is kinda what the Fighter class is all about from a fundamental level. I do agree, but we're not looking at a major investment of attention.  'Okay, you have these feats, okay you have those feats, in the future, could you please look at some feats for performance so I can balance encounters easier?  And can you hold back on performance feats?  Thank you.' It's not a LOT of homework. I can see that point of view.  But I think it's a fallacy to think that the proposed solution will do that.  It's going to make the game -less- fun for some players, and it's going to make things easier in the long term.   It's not the system demanding the concession.  The concession exists in every roleplaying game.  Players should, ideally, strive to cooperate in the making of characters.  The 'One player has all the powerful stuff and it's making encounter balance crazy' problem has been a problem and question posed since 1st edition D&D.  The solution has always been to tone things down and keep things balanced.4th Edition probably has the least power disparity between the haves and have-nots in the entire history of D&D.  Why is it such a huge problem all of a sudden now that the solution is so simple to implement?The solution used to be 'Throw all the wights, vampires, and rust monsters at the minmaxer.'  We no longer live in times where that is warranted or necessary.  All of the above.  It's a team-sport. The problem is always going to exist.  I cannot blame 4ed for creating the problem when it's the system that has that problem less than any other edition of the game.  It's NOT as big a problem as people make it out to be.How do you solve the problem in 3d edition?  How do you do it in 2nd?  How do you do it in Vampire: The Masquerade?When the problem can be solved in every game ever by the application of a DM intervening to ensure the players are appropriate to the campaign and each other... and this solution can be applied universally across the board... why tamper with a system that works fine and has less of disparity than most systems before it? Well no one seems to have acknoledged the 'Problem is not inherent to the system' part of my posts, because the problem is not inherent to the game mechanics. And if the absence of two feats is causing such a major disparity, then the solution of suggesting they take those two feats out of the 18 they get is not exactly an onerous solution is it? But are they a problem?  Many feats are better than other feats, but that's not a sign that they are a problem.  And you cannot deny that the widening of the gap is as signifigant as the width of gap between optimized and non-optimized in most other rpgs.  I bring to you, Pun-Pun. I am simply stating that if there is a problem, it's solution is found within the system already.  Given the hyperbole of many adherents of the 'feat system sucks' crowd, literally claiming that you need to be top of the line to be effective... yes, I think it is fair to say they are overstating the problem.  Particularly with the perspective that in most other rpgs, the problem is considerably worse.  Is that the fault of the system, or the fault of groups that allow the problem to fester without taking steps to work together and fix it? I've suggested a solution that works, that doesn't involve throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  I've suggested people exercise perspective, and look at the greater picture. The problem ISN'T as bad as people claim.  If it were, heaven forbid they should get into a Vampire the Masquerade game, or any other system where mathematical disparity is possible. I am stating that the issue CAN be addressed and efficiently through party-cohesion and minimal DM overview.  Which is as good as you're ever going to get in any game system.  Changing feat distribution isn't going to negate the problem, it's only going to delay it a bit until more power-creep changes the next problem to utility powers or themes or whatever.I am not suggesting NOT addressing the problem, I'm suggesting examining if it's a problem in a specific group, and IF it is, working together to solve it as a party, rather than change the system itself as a bandaid hoping that will solve things when it doesn't because the problem isn't relegated to feats, or even fourth edition D&D, but rather that min-maxers always find ways to push the envelope and DMs who have groups with min-maxers and non-min-maxers are always going to have that problem.The problem isn't the system, it's min-maxers with non-min-maxers.  Changing the system that has the -least- disparity of all D&D editions isn't going to solve the fundamental issue.  DM intervention can and will and always has.  I have played those other games.  That's how I know it works.  By your logic, anything that reduces disparity must improve the game system.  Therefore the ultimate gamesystem is one without any options for characters to take, because minmaxers attain their disparity by taking options.  The argument is equally absurd in either direction.I don't feel discussing it is problematic.  I feel overstating it is problematic.  I feel declaring characters who don't go bleeding edge as 'ineffective' is problematic, dare I say, symptomatic of the problem. It's not the system, it's the existance of minmaxers and nonminmaxers in that system.  So long as there are choices to make, minmaxers WILL exploit them.  It's what they do.  And you can keep trying to hack and cut and change and chop the system.  And you'll still have exploiters exploiting.DM responsibility and Party-comprimise are the ONLY solutions that work.</blockquote>

Verification