Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 3199796" data-attributes="member: 5171">Except that we're not playing Tunnels &amp; Trolls, Rolemaster, or anything else. We're playing D&amp;D, and part of what we're paying for is, well, balance.I actually put that some options should be worse than the balanced norm, but none should be better. I chose this for two reasons:1) Some options are inherently weaker, but are nice to have for roleplaying reasons. If a given feat or skill can't be made more powerful, I'd rather see it remain but be weaker than see it get cut entirely. And in some situations, that &quot;weaker&quot; skill or feat is actually stronger -- it's not flat-out weaker as much as hugely specialized for a niche situation.2) If there's a clearly better choice, as noted, everyone who isn't die-hard roleplaying something else picks that choice, and that's bad. But if there's a clearly worse choice, then people who aren't yet great at numbers or minmaxing can still feel smart for realizing that a given weapon is weaker than all the other ones. They get to pick something else and say, &quot;Hey, I'm catching on!&quot; It's sort of like a confidence booster. And the crazy minmaxers end up picking that weapon every now and then to show that they can make a powerful character even with that weak weapon, and the crazy roleplayers get to show that they're roleplayers. It is, essentially, an easy roleplaying choice and a sort of low-level &quot;Here, look, here's something clearly weaker&quot; introduction for new players. (In Magic:the Gathering, these would be the lousy cards that the player feels smart for discarding.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="takyris, post: 3199796, member: 5171"] Except that we're not playing Tunnels & Trolls, Rolemaster, or anything else. We're playing D&D, and part of what we're paying for is, well, balance. I actually put that some options should be worse than the balanced norm, but none should be better. I chose this for two reasons: 1) Some options are inherently weaker, but are nice to have for roleplaying reasons. If a given feat or skill can't be made more powerful, I'd rather see it remain but be weaker than see it get cut entirely. And in some situations, that "weaker" skill or feat is actually stronger -- it's not flat-out weaker as much as hugely specialized for a niche situation. 2) If there's a clearly better choice, as noted, everyone who isn't die-hard roleplaying something else picks that choice, and that's bad. But if there's a clearly worse choice, then people who aren't yet great at numbers or minmaxing can still feel smart for realizing that a given weapon is weaker than all the other ones. They get to pick something else and say, "Hey, I'm catching on!" It's sort of like a confidence booster. And the crazy minmaxers end up picking that weapon every now and then to show that they can make a powerful character even with that weak weapon, and the crazy roleplayers get to show that they're roleplayers. It is, essentially, an easy roleplaying choice [b]and[/b] a sort of low-level "Here, look, here's something clearly weaker" introduction for new players. (In Magic:the Gathering, these would be the lousy cards that the player feels smart for discarding.) [/QUOTE]

Verification