NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5539144" data-attributes="member: 18280">There's nothing in this that I disagree with at all.I was just reading through Wik's thread on epic level D&D, and the degree to which the player-presented rules interfere with his ability to frame events.  Whose interpretation determines whether an ooze can be tripped?  The GM's or the system's or the player's?It seems that the more a system is balanced on a knife's edge, the more the system gets to make those decisions.  "System May I say oozes cannot be tripped?"  "No, you may not, or you nerf the fighter!  What seems like a small change to you can actually tip a very fine balance."I personally prefer systems with a broader base of support, where that level of fine balance isn't needed in order to make the game work.  I like GMs to make calls.  I like it when bad things happen unexpectedly...and the PCs win anyway!I do not like games that seem "tactical" on the outside, but which eventually become "We stunlock the monsters" followed by a flurry of coups de grace, without any real chance of failure, combat after combat after combat.  Which seems to be where Wik's epic game lives these days.I also think that a broader base of support allows for a wider variety of characters that are still "balanced" within the context of the whole system.To answer the OP, warriors and wizards are balanced by the warrior's powers being "always on", while the wizard's powers require the correct timing, a lot of luck or forethought, and are often dangerous to the user as well as to the target.  You can model this in a broad-base support game; I have yet to see it modeled well in a knife-edge balance game.RC</blockquote>

Verification