Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 3503879" data-attributes="member: 12037">I don't think campaign balance has any place in game balance. That's why these guidelines are so important, arbitrary or not. So, the game can have standards that something isn't going too far above or below that balance. That's why the wealth guidelines were invented, for example; so that one could gauge relative PC power at a given level regardless of their particular style of play. It also allows one to eyeball a feat, spell, class ability, etc against the base assumptions given.I think we're coming at this from two different angles. If a supplement comes out with options that allow a group of 6th level PCs to, on average, defeat CR 8 encounters using 20% of their resources, those options would not be balanced. This is because the relative power level of the game assumes that they will use more resources on a CR 8 encounter. Sure, I can run a game where level 6 PCs can routinely easily defeat CR 8 encounters, but that has absolutely nothing to do with game balance. I've tossed out the game balance in favor of a new standard, and I must now restandardize the game to fit this alteration. The game hasn't been rebalanced, just my game. So when that supplement comes out that allows level 6 parties to easily defeat CR 8 encounters, it is still not balanced, even if that imbalance doesn't impact my own personal game.Because, when people talk about balance, they have to have a baseline standard, and that standard has been given to us. We can ignore it ourselves, yes, but in order to meaningfully discuss balance, we have to either accept that standard or create a whole new one for purposes of the conversation. It's simplest to just accept the built in balance and go with that, even if we ourselves don't adhere to it individually.</blockquote>

Verification