Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6341310" data-attributes="member: 996">I like to think of balance as being a matter of maximizing choice that keeps as many choices as possible both meaningful and viable.  If it's possible to make a choice between combat and exploration, say, then, yes, there needs to be some sort of balance struck between the two pillars - if combat and exploration choices are 'siloed' they needn't be balanced against /eachother/, merely balanced within their respective pillars.   That sentence doesn't make a lot of sense.  But, yes, balance, by definition, is 'hostile' to individual priorities that have no regard for the individual priorities of others - like any compromise. If you mean that D&D that presents wildly-versatile, abundant, high-power magic as an equally-weighted choice with low-versatility, unlimited, low-power mundane actions (available to everyone) combined with modestly increased durability, yes that's very poor balance.  And, yes, the /compromise/ between players who want obscenely powerful casters overshadowing mundane characters who exist only to provide a contrast that illustrates who awe-inspiring and 'really magical' magic is, and those who want wild 'anime' heroes cutting nigh-irrelevant ritual-only casters in half with a flick of the wrist, is, indeed, /balanced/ classes in which both sorts exist in a more reasonable form, with rough parity in resources, versatility, and power.The other option is to segregate said groups of players, with the former playing something like Ars Magica (or all-caster D&D parties), and the latter playing something like Iron Heroes (or a no-caster party in the one edition of D&D where that was practical).</blockquote>

Verification