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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6146059" data-attributes="member: 5143">I propose that this is a limit on the number of viable choices.  At a certain point it is impossible to balance options and therefore one will ALWAYS be more powerful.  The only way to guarantee balance is to limit options.  Which causes the problem where people get angry because their options are too limited.  It's a circle that just keeps repeating itself.I completely agree, however, the problem I've found is that powergaming has 4 tiers:1) I took this feat because I like bows and I want to be able to shoot far, that sounds awesome.  It gives me +2 to hit when I have an ally next to them.  I didn't look at the rest of the feats since that sounds exactly like the thing I wanted.2) I took this feat because it gives me a +2 bonus to hit with bows as opposed to this feat that gives +2 bonus to hit with bows only while I have an ally next to the enemy because it's better to have a bonus constantly than only sometimes.  Next level I'll take something non-bow related since I want my character to be rounded like a real person an not just focused on one thing.3) I will take both the feats.  If +2 to hit is good, +4 is better.4) I will take both the feats, then I'll take this paragon path that let's me declare a square as occupied for purposes of my feats to guarantee +4 all the time.  Then I'll muticlass into rogue so I qualify for a feat that allows me to apply my sneak attack on attacks if an ally is adjacent to the enemy.  Also, this feat lets me consider an enemy flanked if one of my allies is beside it, giving me another +2 to hit.  Then I will use this power that makes an AOE bow attack.  The feat doesn't specify how many people I'm allowed to declare have a person adjacent to...it just says "the target".  I'll assume that means all of them in an AOE.The real problem with balancing based on "is A or B better" is that it almost always fails to address option C that the designer didn't even consider an option.On one hand, Rifts is precisely that example.  On the other hand, ignoring balance meant that it often didn't matter.  No one went into a battle in Rifts thinking their Street Rat was going to be as effective as the Dragon.  They knew they were playing the non-combat character and would be bad in combat.Not that I agree with that philosophy, but there were quite a few less balance arguments in our Rifts game than in our 4e D&D game.  Because everything is balanced so well, the options that aren't become a point of contention.</blockquote>

Verification