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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prosfilaes" data-source="post: 6361121" data-attributes="member: 40166">What I'm getting at is that is that my worst problem with balance came from a player who played her character extremely ineffectively. Telling me that balance is terribly important and mocking my balance problems is less then convincing.  So playing 3E is badwrongfun. Got it.I'll note that people keep wanting to play the imbalanced game that was 4e, instead of a game that distributed the same character to everyone. There's costs to balance. There's also people who just don't find it necessary; Dannyalcatraz has mentioned having good times running Rifts for a Vagabond and Juicer, and that blows any type of imbalance findable in most any form of D&D out of the water.I'm not familiar with Essentials, but in 4e I would have the same number of daily powers and encounter powers no matter what class I played. So yes, it is impossible to make a character that reduces that complexity, that doesn't have to deliberate in combat over any number of options.That's word games. If it's a common structure where classes don't have a lot of new stuff to be learned, then homogenized is an accurate label. "Samey" is more of a subjective thing, but it's rich to talk about all the differences that were ironed out of the classes and then get outraged when someone considers them "samey".So you really believe the only time people have been upset about an edition change was 3.5 -> 4E? There's a reason most of the rest of us call them "edition wars" and not "the edition war". Moreover, there wasn't material for 3.5; it was for Pathfinder, a different game with all sorts of rules variance that needed to leveled out. Most of the third party support didn't want to try and support a dead system, particularly in the absence of the D20 license.</blockquote>

Verification