Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ProfessorPain" data-source="post: 4721163" data-attributes="member: 82012">Actually I am not talking about players who gimp for role play reasons. I am talking about people who come to the table with a more competitve spirit. Or who simply want to be rewarded for creating good builds. I am not saying this is for everyone. But my point is, a perfectly balanced game isn't the only correct goal in game design. It is a good goal for many types of players. Not all.  Then there is the flavor factor, which I care about. And the star wars example is a key point. If I am playing star wars, I am sorry but jedis are the stars. I would rather have over powered Jedis, that fit the star wars concept, and have the DM be the balancing factor. In games like this I always use the following rule of thumb. Players that take an optimal class like Jedi, are balanced out by how they can behave out of combat and the first to be targeted in most combat encounters. And this is in keeping with the genre. The advantage of playing someone like han solo, isn't what he can do in combat, it is what he can do outside of it. I am not denying the value of streamlined balanced mechanics like you have in 4E, but since its release, everyone seems to think that is the only valid kind of game. There is nothing wrong with people who like a little imbalance in their game, getting it. And just because combat mechanics favor one class, or character path, that doesn't mean it can't be balanced out in other ways.   Not really. You aren't rewarding character choice. You are just dictating that this character is higher level than that character--which is just as possible in a game like 3E. Sure this might work for somethings. But it doesn't restore the versatility of spells, their ability to bend reality. And it doesn't reward good character design.</blockquote>

Verification