Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest&amp;nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 5888540">Just becuae you decided to ignore a crucial mechanic that doesn't make it irrelevant nor does it make the system imbalanced. I can't comment on 1e followers as I am less familiar with the system. Smeone else may be able to address this criticism of the 1e fighter.I agree having alternatives for different campaign styles is good. But the vast majority of standard D&amp;D campaigns I ran during 2e used the follower rules. My ravenloft games didn't, but they still were pretty well balanced due to many of the dangers of casting spells in ravenloft...being a fighter there was always a safe choice. I have to disagree with you. Given the assumptions of D&amp;D and the class system having the fighitng man gain a reputation and attract followers makes sense. But the fighter wasn't the only one who recieved followers (his were jsut pretty darn good). At tenth level thieves also got followers for example. And this was all dependant on player action. Followers arrived if you built a stronghold. You were free to not do so. Calling this bad design because it doesn't suit your preference isn't helpful (i could easily say 4e is bad design design because it fractured the player base for example, but that isn't true). You have a particular set of expectations regarding balance and class design and 2e doesn't meet those. For a lot of others the edition met their balance and pay expectations.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 85555, post: 5888540"] Just becuae you decided to ignore a crucial mechanic that doesn't make it irrelevant nor does it make the system imbalanced. I can't comment on 1e followers as I am less familiar with the system. Smeone else may be able to address this criticism of the 1e fighter. I agree having alternatives for different campaign styles is good. But the vast majority of standard D&D campaigns I ran during 2e used the follower rules. My ravenloft games didn't, but they still were pretty well balanced due to many of the dangers of casting spells in ravenloft...being a fighter there was always a safe choice. I have to disagree with you. Given the assumptions of D&D and the class system having the fighitng man gain a reputation and attract followers makes sense. But the fighter wasn't the only one who recieved followers (his were jsut pretty darn good). At tenth level thieves also got followers for example. And this was all dependant on player action. Followers arrived if you built a stronghold. You were free to not do so. Calling this bad design because it doesn't suit your preference isn't helpful (i could easily say 4e is bad design design because it fractured the player base for example, but that isn't true). You have a particular set of expectations regarding balance and class design and 2e doesn't meet those. For a lot of others the edition met their balance and pay expectations. [/QUOTE]

Verification