Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 5539754" data-attributes="member: 6957">Ah- I apologize. I thought that you were the one running the game. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" />That... makes a big difference.It may be that your GM did a poor job of balancing things, or that your group did not cooperate well, or that your dice hate you.... (My own dice hate everyone. Folks have learned not to borrow my dice, not because I will snarl and bite in order to stop them, but because I will smile and let them.... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" /> ) Too many variables at that point.It takes changing the balance out of your control, so, again, I apologize. In your instance it could have been a poorly balanced low level scenario. It feels different when you are always the one running the game. The few times that I have played, instead of running, balance has not seemed off, but since I am the one who trained the people running the game... it is likely that they remembered to read the DMG.The balance is there, in 3.X, but if the GM doesn't try for it then that won't matter.4e looks to be much more modular, which is one of the things that I dislike about it - but it does make balancing an encounter much easier.The Auld Grump</blockquote>

Verification