Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="enpeze66" data-source="post: 5522482" data-attributes="member: 6672053">After reading this, I think I get a little bit angry the more often I hear this pseudo argument. I think nothing had to be fixed because nothing was broken. The whole wizard-fighter thing was a trade-off. At the beginning the wizard was weak (Ever played a Wizard level 3 with random rolled 5 HP? ) and had to be protected, later he had alot more versatility and explosive power. Nonetheless he still had only a few hitpoints and could still easily killed by a close assaulting monster chicken.But the fighter had durability, especially in games with alot of combat encounters per day, where he could still deal his usual sword damage turn after turn after dozens of combat turns while the mage was outpowered and had already used most its spells.So the whole balancing discussion is a fake. IMO it always depended on the amount of combat encounters and combat turns per day if the wizard class was perceived as powerful or puny. Only in gaming styles where there was a low number of combats per day there could be an imbalance and in gaming styles with a high number of combats its exactly opposite.I consider player archetypes who put a focus on beeing first or having most damage, instead of correctly roleplaying their characters,&nbsp; as &quot;bad players&quot; and they usually dont last very long in my games. I even have no problem at all if the players have vastly different levels in my modules, if this suits to the story. I could imagine that such an approach is the nightmare to every youngster who thinks roleplaying is only about balanced options or character builts. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;I think roleplaying is about portraying characters in a convincing and immersive way and not about focusing to abstract&nbsp; fashionable terms like &quot;spotlight&quot; or &quot;balancing&quot; or &quot;dps&quot;. So what his this to do with simulation? I think everything. Balancing is anti-simulation and anti-roleplaying. The quest of some for balancing is pure gamistic and metagaming. Unfortunately 4th edition put an emphasis on this anti-roleplaying concept so alot of younger players got spoiled. This unlucky DnD edition damaged the whole hobby genre for a long time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="enpeze66, post: 5522482, member: 6672053"] After reading this, I think I get a little bit angry the more often I hear this pseudo argument. I think nothing had to be fixed because nothing was broken. The whole wizard-fighter thing was a trade-off. At the beginning the wizard was weak (Ever played a Wizard level 3 with random rolled 5 HP? ) and had to be protected, later he had alot more versatility and explosive power. Nonetheless he still had only a few hitpoints and could still easily killed by a close assaulting monster chicken. But the fighter had durability, especially in games with alot of combat encounters per day, where he could still deal his usual sword damage turn after turn after dozens of combat turns while the mage was outpowered and had already used most its spells. So the whole balancing discussion is a fake. IMO it always depended on the amount of combat encounters and combat turns per day if the wizard class was perceived as powerful or puny. Only in gaming styles where there was a low number of combats per day there could be an imbalance and in gaming styles with a high number of combats its exactly opposite. I consider player archetypes who put a focus on beeing first or having most damage, instead of correctly roleplaying their characters, as "bad players" and they usually dont last very long in my games. I even have no problem at all if the players have vastly different levels in my modules, if this suits to the story. I could imagine that such an approach is the nightmare to every youngster who thinks roleplaying is only about balanced options or character builts. :) I think roleplaying is about portraying characters in a convincing and immersive way and not about focusing to abstract fashionable terms like "spotlight" or "balancing" or "dps". So what his this to do with simulation? I think everything. Balancing is anti-simulation and anti-roleplaying. The quest of some for balancing is pure gamistic and metagaming. Unfortunately 4th edition put an emphasis on this anti-roleplaying concept so alot of younger players got spoiled. This unlucky DnD edition damaged the whole hobby genre for a long time. [/QUOTE]

Verification