Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 5887742" data-attributes="member: 1879">Truth. If you want to play a difficult class with lousy stats, that's going to be punishment enough. Conversely why exactly do we need to award a guy who rolled well with a heaping pile of even more awesome? He's already faster, stronger and better looking than you are. Why should he also access to more powerful classes? Dad always liked him best?Life isn't fair, and I don't have much sympathy for the player entitlement camp, but there is no need to kick a guy when he's down. As for differing XP charts, no. Differing advancement rates are an attempt to balance different classes over the life of a campaign. Which is a lousy way to do it IMHO. It's too long a time frame. John the fighter is not going to be happy acting as caddy to the wizard at high levels while mumbling &quot;Remember when I did stuff too? I used to have something. I coulda been a contender, but you never looked out for me Gary...&quot; Plus short games or con games completely spike the 'fast advancment' classes guns as there is no downside, at all, to taking the better class. I do want to see 5e spread the balance economy out over broader ranges of time than 4es AEDU system, but I think the 3e Artificer with a resource pool that refreshed once a level is about as far as that concept can stretch.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andor, post: 5887742, member: 1879"] Truth. If you want to play a difficult class with lousy stats, that's going to be punishment enough. Conversely why exactly do we need to award a guy who rolled well with a heaping pile of even more awesome? He's already faster, stronger and better looking than you are. Why should he [i]also[/i] access to more powerful classes? Dad always liked him best? Life isn't fair, and I don't have much sympathy for the player entitlement camp, but there is no need to kick a guy when he's down. As for differing XP charts, no. Differing advancement rates are an attempt to balance different classes over the life of a campaign. Which is a lousy way to do it IMHO. It's too long a time frame. John the fighter is not going to be happy acting as caddy to the wizard at high levels while mumbling "Remember when I did stuff too? I used to have something. I coulda been a contender, but you never looked out for me Gary..." Plus short games or con games completely spike the 'fast advancment' classes guns as there is no downside, at all, to taking the better class. I do want to see 5e spread the balance economy out over broader ranges of time than 4es AEDU system, but I think the 3e Artificer with a resource pool that refreshed once a level is about as far as that concept can stretch. [/QUOTE]

Verification