Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8252883" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I understand that’s your opinion. I disagree.It is a “rich get richer” mechanic, yes. But for what purpose are these bonuses being gate kept? Verisimilitude? That surely played a role. As you noted, the thinking was likely something along the lines of “Paladins should be rarer than Fighters; higher ability scores are rarer to roll; if being a Paladin requires high ability scores, they will be rarer.” But if versimilitude is the only purpose this gatekeeping serves, there’s no reason to give more powerful bonuses to the rarer classes. No gameplay reason for the rich to be richer. No need to make Paladins stronger than Fighters, except to ~balance~ out the fact that they’re so much rarer. To create a satisfying payoff for getting that high roll.Yes, all of those things are also attempts at balance.But to what end? Why hide those advantages behind minimum abilities, if not to balance out their power with scarcity?I disagree that it’s particularly realistic. What it is is versimilar. It feels right that you should get some extra-special reward for rolling the high numbers. It feels right that the more powerful class be harder to get, because only the very gifted can become one. These things balance each other out. Not just anyone can get the super powerful classes/bonuses. They are “gatekept” behind stats that you’re unlikely to roll. This keeps the average character power level lower. It is, in my assessment, another attempt at balance. A different sort of balance than the other things you listed, but balance nonetheless.Of course.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8252883, member: 6779196"] I understand that’s your opinion. I disagree. It is a “rich get richer” mechanic, yes. But for what purpose are these bonuses being gate kept? Verisimilitude? That surely played a role. As you noted, the thinking was likely something along the lines of “Paladins should be rarer than Fighters; higher ability scores are rarer to roll; if being a Paladin requires high ability scores, they will be rarer.” But if versimilitude is the only purpose this gatekeeping serves, there’s no reason to give more powerful bonuses to the rarer classes. No gameplay reason for the rich to be richer. No need to make Paladins stronger than Fighters, except to ~balance~ out the fact that they’re so much rarer. To create a satisfying payoff for getting that high roll. Yes, all of those things are also attempts at balance. But to what end? Why hide those advantages behind minimum abilities, if not to balance out their power with scarcity? I disagree that it’s particularly realistic. What it is is versimilar. It [I]feels[/I] right that you should get some extra-special reward for rolling the high numbers. It [I]feels[/I] right that the more powerful class be harder to get, because only the very gifted can become one. These things balance each other out. Not just anyone can get the super powerful classes/bonuses. They are “gatekept” behind stats that you’re unlikely to roll. This keeps the average character power level lower. It is, in my assessment, another attempt at balance. A different sort of balance than the other things you listed, but balance nonetheless. Of course. [/QUOTE]

Verification