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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4932296" data-attributes="member: 5143">The thing is, the mold was causing the imbalance.  So, no, it couldn't have been.In a game using just the 2e PHB, the difference between any two fighters was: The weapon they were using, their stats(of which only really strength and con mattered at all), their magic items, and whether they were specialized or not.This meant that the difference in damage between 2 fighters was, at most, 16 points(25 if you count hit percentage).  The difference between 1d4 and 1d12+12.  And that's assuming a fighter using a +5 weapon of the biggest kind he can find with an 18/00 strength who is specialized in it vs a fighter with 10 strength who uses a dagger.  Most enemies, even at high levels didn't have much more than 60 or 70 hitpoints.  Even with a 10 strength fighter with a +5 dagger was going to kill any any they fought, solo, in about 10 rounds.In 3e, the difference between a 10 strength fighter who avoids any feats that increase his damage or hit percentage, doesn't find any magic items, and doesn't put any points into his strength vs the one that started with a 20 strength, gets every magic item and feat he can to increase his strength, hit chance, and damage is approximately 51(102 if you factor in hit percentage).  This means the difference between killing a 200 hitpoint dragon in 2 rounds vs 100 rounds.And that is just a comparison of fighters.  If you take something like a weak Rogue vs a power Cleric or Druid and the numbers skyrocket to 200 or 300 points of damage different between them.The mold of 3e was a design of customization.  It was "You can choose how powerful you want to be".  More customization = more imbalance.  It's just the way things work.  The ONLY way to reign in imbalance is to reign in customization.</blockquote>

Verification