Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6178156" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I do not think that's true at all. Especially if we consider overall effectiveness at adventuring, rather than a straight-up fight. I would think that the player halfling/gnome/dwarf fighter expects his character to play differently than the human fighter, but not necessarily worse overall. I see absolutely no problem with saying that two fighters of equivalent level are of (roughly) equal combat effectiveness. The heavier fighter does it with strength and the lighter with more skill and cleverness. (Trust me, I outmass my sensei by almost 60% and hold no illusions about which of us would win that fight.) So far as I am aware, there is nothing in any edition that defines levels purely as a measure of skill, rather than overall ability.I especially don't like the idea that we are trying to be subtle about it. If someone was to explicitly desire to play the sidekick or lesser character for some reason, then I don't see why they couldn't start with a balanced system and just refuse to level up, or take some other equally explicit penalty. However, I don't like the idea that I'm supposed to be "reading" this information from a player's choices. Worse, I don't like the idea that someone has to come to the table having read through the game to conclude these things. This experience is very different from mine. In 2e and 3e, I experienced many episodes where class\character imbalance either tore apart a campaign or threatened to do so. (In fact, the current OSR game I'm in is on the verge of such a collapse.) While DMs can deal with it, I certainly don't see any reason to advocate for it. Additionally, I'm quite confident that this kind of "anticipated imbalance" you seem to be advocating here is not nearly as popular as you seem to think. Speaking as an experienced DM...it seems like a lot more work than its worth.The simple fact is that even if a group wants something imbalanced for some reason ("We're playing Conan, barbarians should rock!" or "This is a magic-heavy world, Wizards should be dominant." or "This is a mafia-centered world, Thieves are the cat's pajamas here." etc.) It is much easier, and more reliable, to start with a "balanced" game and tweak it from there than it is to try and rework a wildly imbalanced system. Thus, starting from a position of balance supports a wider diversity of playstyles than starting from a particular disparity.</blockquote>

Verification