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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Random Bystander" data-source="post: 7003520" data-attributes="member: 6702095">The major reason this is a problem, I feel, is that the game is inherently imbalanced. When the decision to make a competent character can rapidly slide up the scale from "might not die when facing light cavalry riding warhorses at 1st level" to "the Ogre is already dead", still at 1st level... True, this imbalance is most apparent in the 3.x edition. However, as far as I am aware, all editions save perhaps *4th have some level of imbalance whereby a character may become essentially unassailable. 3.x is the zenith of this trend, but it is standing on the same hill.And indeed, if some edition of Dungeons and Dragons were created which had no imbalance beyond some modicum amount of optimization, around perhaps the level of choosing a bonus to hit or to be more skilled at tripping, the problem may become that the game may inevitably become too constrained.But I think, perhaps, **any edition of D&D can be played within a useful range of competence - Within certain constraints that do not, in general, restrict the genre/play. I find the 5th Edition a step in the right direction; and, certainly, its popularity proves itself.In short, the problem of balanced or imbalanced characters is one endemic to the style of game of Dungeons and Dragons, and at most, the "range band" may be tuned. Some other games can allow optimized and un-optimized characters to happily co-exist, but are typically much more limiting in various ways.* Which edition is not the point being discussed.** Even the Third and a Numeral edition.</blockquote>

Verification