Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6178477" data-attributes="member: 6681948">To me, that 14 WIS, 16 CHA half orc Barbarian we fleshed out a few pages back has a lot more to overcome (based on what that leaves to invest in other stats) than a 14 STR 19 DEX Halfling warrior, as far as being a great combatant (not necessarily great melee combatant, although we're getting a lot closer).The concept of a level is a level is a level comes with the removal of variable xp costs.  The concept that 1,000 xo, 10,000 xp and 100,000 xp characters would be comparable dates back further.  The fact that Thieves needed less xp to gain a level always implied, at least to our groups, that thieves gained less from that level.  This is also where Multiclassing has issues in the 3e model - going from 7th to 8th level Fighter or Wizard costs a lot more xp than advancing from 1st to second, but going from L7?/L1 W to L2 W costs more xp as going from L7? to L8? (including L7 W to L8 W) - why?  Is it the right result?Looks like they all expect to do great things in the game, and since they all showed up as PC's, to get there by adventuring.  If bards are poorer adventurers, then they have less of a shot at doing great things.  I think they should all be capable of achieving great things.  Why don't the wizard and barbarian also expect to be celebrities in their fields?Ever hear the phrase "equal pay for work of equal value"?  If we reflected them as classes for an RPG, and if they each needed the same xp to gain a level, I would definitely expect them to be of equivalent competence and utility at the same level.  If either one is much more experienced, I would expect that one to be much more useful than the other.  And if I could not justify that - if I felt the doctor would always be clearly better than the nurse at every level - then the Nurse would be an NPC class for precisely that reason.  If I view a Bard as being a "poorer choice", it would also be an NPC class.Which one is a better archer?  Which one, had more influence on the events in play and which one was an NPC intended to advance the plot as needed, but not to directly accomplish the goals of the campaign?  JRR and his Mary Sue NPCs...  In an Ars Magica game, I would expect wizards to rule the roost.  In a D&D game, where we do not focus on wizards, I do not consider it desirable that the wizard be more powerful.Ignoring which is a PC and which an NPC, and respective levels, who was better at hiding and gathering information stealthily?  Would Aragorn have been able to rally the Hobbits back at the Shire?  Again, different strengths and weaknesses with overall balance is my objective.Does the Captain have the ability to sense emotions?  Again, is her role best suited, in a specific game, to a PC or NPC?  If the former, she should be equivalent in utility.  If the latter, she can have an NPC class and be relegated to a secondary role.  And, on the show, I would suggest she held a secondary role.  I can't remember much in the way of great adventure arcs focusing on that character.Again, I'd call him a clear NPC.  In Hero Games parlance, a Contact, maybe a Follower, perhaps a Dependent NPC.  NOT a PC, not by a long shot.To me, your comments above imply that the 3e rules were balanced, and the perception of imbalance arose because something in the rules was missed.  However, the rest of your discussion (especially the "class" issue which I just snipped...) indicates the game is unbalanced, this is deliberate and it is appropriate.  Colour me confused!I don't believe the three are incompatible.  If anything, "Role Playing" (such an action would be dishonourable - if we stoop to their level we have already lost) and "Game" (Torch to the Groin gets the best bonus) are the aspects that most often come into conflict.  "Balance" neither supports nor discourages "Role Playing".  "Game" suggests everyone has an equal chance to "win"/succeed, which suggests equity, fairness and balance.</blockquote>

Verification