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: 4721181" data-attributes="member: 82012">No. 3E is about builds and multiclassing. Players are rewarded for mastery of the system and clever use of resources. Some abilities are objectively better than others in certain sistuations for this reason. My point is, this is one approach and for some of us, it is fun.  Are wizards better at higher levels than a straight fighter or rogue, sure. But the game isn't effectively about the wizard. Wizards get rewarded in the long haul, but pay a price in the short term. For the last few levels of a campaign, they tend to shine. Though if the non-casters made good builds, they can shine as well.   And in Star Wars this is how Jedis are. If I am playing the game, I want Jedi to outperform the other characters. I remember in pre-saga days, everyone knew the Jedi was the best class, but if you were going to play a jedi you had to bring your A game. The DM expected a good story around your character, and he expected you to do some heavy lifting. And we were all fine with this, because we played Han Solo, with the understanding that we were playing han solo and not luke skywalker.    The answer here is simply to expect more from the players who select Jedi. I played a ton of this game, and we never had a problem with everyone wanting to be a Jedi. At most we had two Jedi in a group. But mostly just one. And no one had a problem with their power level.  That said, you could take the 4E approach and go more for balance. There is nothing wrong with that either. But there is a trade off with it. Me, I would rather have the full flavor of star wars. And if a game comes out that blatantly favors Jedi, I am fine with that design approach.   And this is the balancing factor. Non Jedi characters have an easier time moving through the plot outside of combat. And for us, that was a good junk of the game. Again, you can do it either way. And it is a trade off.   I was never that worried about party dynamics. So the Jedi is a Jedi, and do some impressive stuff like he is supposed to do. I never got bored with a han solo like character. And I expected the Jedi to shine a bit.   But I don't like saga. And this is my point. Game design is about making games people want to play. You and I want to play different kinds of games. So there is nothing wrong with having one game design approach geared toward you, and another geared toward me. And neither of us is playing the game wrong, or being bad roleplayers. We just prefer different things be focused on in our systems.   For you. Not for me. That is my point. What is fun for you, isn't fun for everybody. For me this is frankly a little boring. I am not saying you are playing a bad game. It is just not the game I want to play.   But you can play any class you want. If you hate being the weaker class don't play. I actually don't mind having the mundane classes be a little more mundane, and playing them. I love being han solo in star wars, or the fighter in 3E. And I love having a wizard in my party that isn't toned down. I love having a Jedi that is just like in the movies. For me this is fun. If you don't like it, there are plenty of games designed for your taste. But don't tell me my taste is wrong, or the design behind them is flawed, if me and my group is having a blast. Play the game you like by all means. Its all good.</blockquote>

Verification