Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6178461" data-attributes="member: 17106">I have no problem with saying that a character of superior skill can overcome a deficiency in physical attributes. And D&D does place level-based bonuses as being greater than abilities and static modifiers for size and the like.The conceit of a level in class X being the same as one in class Y is relatively new. After all, there used to be different XP requirements, making it pretty clear that a level in wizard was worth more than a level in thief. And I'm not aware of any edition that defines levels as a measure of overall ability, though it seems to be implied in some cases.I see nothing subtle about it. If the player picks a wizard, he probably expects that with enough training he can do things like change shapes or summon demon lords or grant wishes. If a player plays a barbarian, he probably expects to be an invincible and intimidating combat machine with a connection to the natural world. If a player plays a bard, he probably expects to be a great storyteller and a celebrity.Even before discussing any mechanical jargon, I can't imagine that a player sees all those concepts as being of exactly equal overall usefulness in any particular campaign. They are obviously different, and which one will play out better obviously depends a lot of what type of game you're playing, as well as a lot of random unpredictable things that happen during play.Who says it's a penalty? I distinctly recall, for example, that when I was a child, I would ask my father, a nurse, when he was going to get promoted to doctor. Obviously, this never happened. They're separate professions. An experienced nurse often has capabilities in excess of an inexperienced physician, and may even have some unique skills that the physician will never acquire. That said, if we were representing them as classes for an rpg, the doctor class would definitely have more powers than the nurse. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Both of them have value. Where would we be without nurses?The same is true in any number of contexts, Aragorn is never going to be as good as Gandalf no matter how hard he works, nor is Merry ever going to be as good as Aragorn. Counselor Troi is never going to match up with Captain Picard. Jim Gordon is never going to be Batman.Neither real life nor any of the fiction we create to relieve us from it is solely about the best and the brightest, nor are opportunities ever equal for everyone. If anything, a class system explicates and encourages inequalities. After all, what does the word "class" mean in real life? I don't think people of a lower class are less valuable or interesting. In the context of a game, I don't think playing a lesser class is bad or wrong.I don't know anything about these particular experiences, but I know that in my experiences with those systems, there have been plenty of times where a character seemed unbalanced, but we later discovered some clause written in the rules that clearly addressed the issue. I have a close to encyclopedic knowledge of 3e, and I miss things. I'm more inclined to believe that faults lie with people rather than rules (which again, I include myself in).And the other thing I see a lot of is characters that dominate for a little while, and then cede the floor without any special intervention on my part, so I'd wonder how long you think something has to be a problem before it's really a problem. I expect that on most weeks, someone's character does great and another character doesn't.I don't know what this "balanced" game would look like, but I doubt I'd play it. I don't see how it's easier to start from an unnatural perspective designed to serve one metagame agenda, and build the roleplaying and the game parts back in.</blockquote>

Verification