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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 2232623" data-attributes="member: 172">No, I really don't think so, unless you have an exceedingly narrow definition of balance.I do think at high levels (speaking as a GM-running-villain-NPC here), it becomes almost a necessity to have magic to escape from a rampaging PC party. But that is not the basis of balance. Nor does it really disturb me. I find that one of the central measures of balance is whether it distorts the nature of the way the game is played (such as creating must-have classes, feats, spells, etc.) I really see no problem with high level recurring villains being predominantly mages.Considering the sorts of damage that a high level fighter or rogue can continuosly pump out, and take, I really don't see the problem here. Yes, it's true that the game becomes much more difficult without mages (mage meaning sorcerer/wizard). But it becomes equivalently more difficult without fighter types.I disagree with the notion that you should not take the party model into consideration when designing for balance. Yes, you will have to tweak the sorts of challenges that you face the PCs with if you deviate from that model. But that's okay. We can do that. The stardard party model is a fairly neutral ground, and it takes a lot less to go from there to an all-mage or all-warrior game than it would from any particular extreme. And it's a fairly common standard configuration.Trying to base the model of game balance around individual characters facing off would be entirely too fragile and unreliable. I think the party model is the best model you can really hope for.</blockquote>

Verification