Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 6344977" data-attributes="member: 46713">Pretty much this. For me the most important aspect of 'balance' is that every character must have the same chance to 'shine' in a typical game session. Ideally, every character can contribute something in every session. I'd still consider it okay if a character can only contribute something every other session, but less than that and I'd consider it a problem.If you have a party of extreme specialists, then as the DM you must be careful to give everyone something to do. It's obviously easier to create adventures if there's a common 'thing' that everyone is at least adequately good at that comes up every session. For D&amp;D that 'thing' typically means combat encounters. 4e solved that by making every character equally proficient in combat.I'm not a friend of trading 'short-term effectiveness' for 'long-term over-poweredness'. This was a big problem in our AD&amp;D 1e and 2e campaigns. If it takes too long for a character until she's able to carry her own weight, that's frustrating for everyone involved.Finally, regarding 'imbalance' with weapon choices: Imho, there must always be a reason for choosing a sub-optimal weapon, e.g. in your comparison: a bazooka will probably be a lot more expensive than a paper-knife, so maybe for a poor character it's a non-choice. The paper-knife may also have situational advantages, e.g. it should work better in close combat or if silence is an important issue. It might also work against a foe that is immune against bazookas.I recall that in 3e my characters always carried a dagger along with their primary weapon of choice, just in cased they encountered a monster that could swallow them whole or grab them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jhaelen, post: 6344977, member: 46713"] Pretty much this. For me the most important aspect of 'balance' is that every character must have the same chance to 'shine' in a typical game session. Ideally, every character can contribute something in every session. I'd still consider it okay if a character can only contribute something every other session, but less than that and I'd consider it a problem. If you have a party of extreme specialists, then as the DM you must be careful to give everyone something to do. It's obviously easier to create adventures if there's a common 'thing' that everyone is at least adequately good at that comes up every session. For D&D that 'thing' typically means combat encounters. 4e solved that by making every character equally proficient in combat. I'm not a friend of trading 'short-term effectiveness' for 'long-term over-poweredness'. This was a big problem in our AD&D 1e and 2e campaigns. If it takes too long for a character until she's able to carry her own weight, that's frustrating for everyone involved. Finally, regarding 'imbalance' with weapon choices: Imho, there must always be a reason for choosing a sub-optimal weapon, e.g. in your comparison: a bazooka will probably be a lot more expensive than a paper-knife, so maybe for a poor character it's a non-choice. The paper-knife may also have situational advantages, e.g. it should work better in close combat or if silence is an important issue. It might also work against a foe that is immune against bazookas. I recall that in 3e my characters always carried a dagger along with their primary weapon of choice, just in cased they encountered a monster that could swallow them whole or grab them. [/QUOTE]

Verification