Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest&amp;nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 5887721">Well some of us are saying that is a good way to balance classes. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but we have had at least two posters defend these approaches to balance. Personally I very much enjoyed 2E balance over 3E's or 4E's. It is less gonzo than third edition, but more textured than fourth. I doubt very much these are all popular enough to make it into 5E. Not many people share my love of the AD&amp;D XP progressions for example. But I do think many of the ways spells were contained will come back. I also see signs that the new skill system is somewhat rooted in the NWP system. Followers are something I really hope they bring back because it was so crucial to higher level play and balance. But most likely I anticipate it will be brought in through modules or feats (really hope they don't do the later). Random ability rolls and ability requirements are controvertial. I can see why people don't like the later, but I believe random stats are a better way to run the game than point buys or stacked rolls (4d6 take the lowest and put wherever you want). At least for D&amp;D. The longer I play, the more I like random abilities and let-the-dice fall where they may. Of course what makes a good approach to balance will depend on what your preferences are. People who play 4e tend to want a particular kind of balance (they really like the balance by encounter approach) whereas people who play 3E are much more into the balance over an adventue approach (or even balance over the campaign). I see a lot of people try to make this into an objective standard.&quot;But the game is only fun if the players can...&quot; to me this is hogwash. Everyone finds different things and different balancing nechanisms fun. When people say this what thy are really saying is &quot;But the game is only fun for me if the players can...&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 85555, post: 5887721"] Well some of us are saying that is a good way to balance classes. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but we have had at least two posters defend these approaches to balance. Personally I very much enjoyed 2E balance over 3E's or 4E's. It is less gonzo than third edition, but more textured than fourth. I doubt very much these are all popular enough to make it into 5E. Not many people share my love of the AD&D XP progressions for example. But I do think many of the ways spells were contained will come back. I also see signs that the new skill system is somewhat rooted in the NWP system. Followers are something I really hope they bring back because it was so crucial to higher level play and balance. But most likely I anticipate it will be brought in through modules or feats (really hope they don't do the later). Random ability rolls and ability requirements are controvertial. I can see why people don't like the later, but I believe random stats are a better way to run the game than point buys or stacked rolls (4d6 take the lowest and put wherever you want). At least for D&D. The longer I play, the more I like random abilities and let-the-dice fall where they may. Of course what makes a good approach to balance will depend on what your preferences are. People who play 4e tend to want a particular kind of balance (they really like the balance by encounter approach) whereas people who play 3E are much more into the balance over an adventue approach (or even balance over the campaign). I see a lot of people try to make this into an objective standard."But the game is only fun if the players can..." to me this is hogwash. Everyone finds different things and different balancing nechanisms fun. When people say this what thy are really saying is "But the game is only fun for me if the players can..." [/QUOTE]

Verification