Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 5934260" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I don't believe in game balance.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I haven't seen a good enough definition that doesn't seem to mean &quot;what I like &quot; or &quot;numerically equivalent in combat&quot;. I used to believe in it, but after thinking about it for years I've come to the conclusion that the idea is an illusion. With regard to the problems people usually seem to be referring to as &quot;imbalance&quot;, sure, they can be addressed. However, its not that balance is to be sought, so much as gross distortion of the game is to be avoided, if that makes any sense.Seems to me like that's a suitable idea for a character or game which drops themes/feats, but still doesn't like that &quot;Old School Feel&quot;. Honestly, I'm not sure how many players who don't want to pick among more complicated feats, are going to want to sit down and sort out the &quot;simple&quot; ones from the list. I would be kinda like that &quot;4e without magic&quot; rule, just add +X every so many levels to make up for its absence. huh?<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /> Do you mean the &quot;Herbalism&quot; or &quot;Healer's Touch&quot; feat? Neither one impresses me that way. To me, Skill Focus, Toughness (not as much), Weapon Specialization, etc. the &quot;small static bonuses&quot; themselves, smack right into the whole &quot;Bounded Accuracy&quot; thing, which I vastly prefer. Personally, I don't care whether they are &quot;traditional&quot; or not. If they don't fit well, chuck 'em. Feats are not such a fundamental part of D&amp;D that they absolutely need to be there in a form similar to how they started. I'd much rather see them as bigger or more interesting parts of the character than &quot;+1 to X&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 5934260, member: 6688937"] I don't believe in game balance.:) I haven't seen a good enough definition that doesn't seem to mean "what I like " or "numerically equivalent in combat". I used to believe in it, but after thinking about it for years I've come to the conclusion that the idea is an illusion. With regard to the problems people usually seem to be referring to as "imbalance", sure, they can be addressed. However, its not that balance is to be sought, so much as gross distortion of the game is to be avoided, if that makes any sense. Seems to me like that's a suitable idea for a character or game which drops themes/feats, but still doesn't like that "Old School Feel". Honestly, I'm not sure how many players who don't want to pick among more complicated feats, are going to want to sit down and sort out the "simple" ones from the list. I would be kinda like that "4e without magic" rule, just add +X every so many levels to make up for its absence. huh?:erm: Do you mean the "Herbalism" or "Healer's Touch" feat? Neither one impresses me that way. To me, Skill Focus, Toughness (not as much), Weapon Specialization, etc. the "small static bonuses" themselves, smack right into the whole "Bounded Accuracy" thing, which I vastly prefer. Personally, I don't care whether they are "traditional" or not. If they don't fit well, chuck 'em. Feats are not such a fundamental part of D&D that they absolutely need to be there in a form similar to how they started. I'd much rather see them as bigger or more interesting parts of the character than "+1 to X". [/QUOTE]

Verification