Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bigkahuna" data-source="post: 6882533" data-attributes="member: 6808141">I second Tony's comments above regarding balance but would like to add that balance is also extremely relative in 5e.&nbsp; Depending on your parties makeup an easy encounter for one group can be extremely difficult for another.&nbsp; The Encounter system generally assumes a balanced party, aka, a party made up of various classes that play off each other in some form of coordination but in practice most campaigns don't really get that.&nbsp; Your always going to end up with an adventuring party with shortcomings unless they really coordinate their character creation.More to the point though roleplaying game balance in general is a very obtuse thing, what any single individual considers balanced or unbalanced is debatable.&nbsp; The only true form of balance D&amp;D ever got was in 4e, in that the classes where balanced by effectively being equal within their archtype.&nbsp; So it didn't matter which striker or tank you chose as long as you had one so getting a balanced group, at least the discussion among players would be like &quot;Im going striker... ok I'll go tank, ok I'll go control&quot; and boom you have a perfectly balanced party.&nbsp; That was one good element of 4e.&nbsp; Problem with it was that it was incredibly boring in practice because as it turns out.. balanced roleplaying games are quite dry and boring.Then there is the whole concept of in and out of combat balance... a barbarian polearmer is an awsome fighter, but outside of combat he is outright useless.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bigkahuna, post: 6882533, member: 6808141"] I second Tony's comments above regarding balance but would like to add that balance is also extremely relative in 5e. Depending on your parties makeup an easy encounter for one group can be extremely difficult for another. The Encounter system generally assumes a balanced party, aka, a party made up of various classes that play off each other in some form of coordination but in practice most campaigns don't really get that. Your always going to end up with an adventuring party with shortcomings unless they really coordinate their character creation. More to the point though roleplaying game balance in general is a very obtuse thing, what any single individual considers balanced or unbalanced is debatable. The only true form of balance D&D ever got was in 4e, in that the classes where balanced by effectively being equal within their archtype. So it didn't matter which striker or tank you chose as long as you had one so getting a balanced group, at least the discussion among players would be like "Im going striker... ok I'll go tank, ok I'll go control" and boom you have a perfectly balanced party. That was one good element of 4e. Problem with it was that it was incredibly boring in practice because as it turns out.. balanced roleplaying games are quite dry and boring. Then there is the whole concept of in and out of combat balance... a barbarian polearmer is an awsome fighter, but outside of combat he is outright useless. [/QUOTE]

Verification