Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7426803" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't think options is, in itself, the right framework for the analysis. Eg having a list of 200 skills (I'm looking at Rolemaster and its derivatives, or Burning Wheel; RQ doesn't have quite so long a skill list, but it's still longer than D&D's) gives lots of options, but won't break the game.It's the cumulative interaction of choices from multiple lists that is distinctive to D&D and generates many of the game breakage problems - one well-known combination (which may not break all games but has been said to break some) is choosing Great Weapon Master from one list, and then Bless from another, thereby counteracting the penalty that was part of the balance of GWM.In addition to the three factors I mentioned, another that is significant for breakage of D&D combat is multiple dimensions of effectiveness. Eg GWM works by trading of one dimension of effectiveness (the roll to hit) against another (the roll for damage). The use of Bless then undoes the penalty in one dimension, while leaving the boost to the other dimension intact. Over-powered crit-fishing (which was part of some degenerate 4e builds) is a manifestation of the same phenomenon. And of course multiple dimensions of effectiveness synergises strongly with PC build by picking from many lists to produce many possibilities of breakage.I think, if a D&D player has experienced actual or threatened game breakage, but still likes D&D, it is helpful to identify these factors that contribute to breakage in a clear and concrete manner, and then come up with some strategies to solve them: limiting the problematic elements, or prohibiting certain combinations, etc. To me it would make sense to be rather ruthless in this respect, but also fairly finely focused (eg banning all feats seems like it might be overkill, but if certain feats are breaking one's game then get rid of them - and the fact that they're not hurting others' games would be no reason at all not to get rid of them from one's own).</blockquote>

Verification