Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="haakon1" data-source="post: 5969455" data-attributes="member: 25619">I don't think we're talking about the same thing.For my campaign, balance between characters is not a goal, whereas making the players do resource management is absolutely a goal.&nbsp; So &quot;balance&quot; restrictions that remove resource management are a big negative for me.The simplest way to explain it is the &quot;Combat as War&quot; versus &quot;Combat as Sport&quot; thing.&nbsp; For me, the game is about the party pulling together to overcome whatever obstacle they encounter, with any resources they can muster, deployed with as clever tactics as they can come up with.&nbsp; It's not a sport, it's a war, where each side is trying to kill the other, players versus bad guys.&nbsp; D&amp;D is a team game, there's no &quot;I&quot; in team, so balance is largely irrelevant.Obsessing about interclass balance seems to me like worrying about whether the Forward Observer/Radioman, Machinegunner, Pointman, or Sniper is more &quot;overpowered&quot; in RECON (modern warfare RPG).&nbsp; Each is very good at what they do, but it's not a competition, it's cooperation where everyone is needed to survive.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes, only the Forward Observer can do big boom stuff like call in airstrikes . . . but if you don't have a good pointman, you're likely to die in your first ambush, before you even get on the radio.&nbsp; Maximum potential DPS is not the only measure of usefulness or fun to play . . . not by a .50 sniper shot from a half-mile off.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="haakon1, post: 5969455, member: 25619"] I don't think we're talking about the same thing. For my campaign, balance between characters is not a goal, whereas making the players do resource management is absolutely a goal. So "balance" restrictions that remove resource management are a big negative for me. The simplest way to explain it is the "Combat as War" versus "Combat as Sport" thing. For me, the game is about the party pulling together to overcome whatever obstacle they encounter, with any resources they can muster, deployed with as clever tactics as they can come up with. It's not a sport, it's a war, where each side is trying to kill the other, players versus bad guys. D&D is a team game, there's no "I" in team, so balance is largely irrelevant. Obsessing about interclass balance seems to me like worrying about whether the Forward Observer/Radioman, Machinegunner, Pointman, or Sniper is more "overpowered" in RECON (modern warfare RPG). Each is very good at what they do, but it's not a competition, it's cooperation where everyone is needed to survive. Yes, only the Forward Observer can do big boom stuff like call in airstrikes . . . but if you don't have a good pointman, you're likely to die in your first ambush, before you even get on the radio. Maximum potential DPS is not the only measure of usefulness or fun to play . . . not by a .50 sniper shot from a half-mile off. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification