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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Don Durito" data-source="post: 7932537" data-attributes="member: 6687260">Ok so leaving aside what 'special' means...'Balance' as such depends to a degree on how directly comparable things are.  If a game says "here are three ways to be a badass melee warrior, choose one" then those three things are likely directly comparable and as such there's an issue if they aren't balanced.  If a game says "you can be a badass warrior or you can turn into a bat for 10 minutes every day, then these are less directly comparable, and much more difficult to balance. How useful is to be a bat?  How much combat will there be?  A lot of balancing the two falls back on the GM or the creativity of the players (depending on playstyle) and their different enough that even if they aren't balanced, the player who thinks turning into a bat is really cool, may still choose that option because it's the only way to achieve that end.A lot depends then on how interesting you think choosing how you can be a bad ass warrior is.  For some players it is significant.  For others it may feel like "you can have any colour you like as long as it's black."  When I see that PF2 photo I just see a page of granular options that basically amount to "hit it with my sword" in a combat that's going to have to take far too long if these things are to be meaningful (because if I just cut the monster's head off, in any additional effects I might apply are meaningless).  In any case it's definitely a choice with less breath then "badass warrior" or "turn into bat".I find it hard to agree that balance is, in itself, actively a problem, but there are trade offs in design used to achieve it.  Things are often balanced because they're designed within a more narrow sphere.  After all 4E was as balanced as it was not because it's options were rigorously tested and reiterated over time.  It was balanced because it's options were designed in such a way as to be easily comparable.  This has to result in a trade off in breadth.There's a paradox that also arises when you look at the possibilty of reskinning and how mechancially distinct options are.  Say we have this set of mechanics:Fighter: default damage D6 Choose one of the 2 following options.Great Weapon FIghting: Add + d4 damageTwo Weapon Fighting: Roll 2d6 for damage and choose the best.Our two options are distinct but not in any meaningful way.  What's more, The first is clearly better.  It's only by a small amount, but since the two choices are so comparable it's obvious.  If I'm allowed to reskin powers there's no reason here for me to choose the lesser option.  Just take Great Weapon Fighting and reskin it as fighting with two weapons.  The sub-optimal choice is only worth taking if it provides a meaningfully different play experience.  (See for example why people played the old school thief class, despite it's obvious weaknesses.).So there's a vicious circle that can arise.   The more you design for balance the more any imbalances, however small they are, become glaring and obvious.  (And this can make choices more burdensome then fun)But this also doesn't mean balance doesn't matter.  If you have three ways to be a badass warrior, but one is garbage, then you usually don't pick it, or it becomes obvious quickly and you rebuild or retrain.  If you choose between bat-shapechanger and badass warrior you may end up playing a campaign for a whole year with gradually growing disillusionment as you find that the situations where you use your bat powers to do something cool are vastly outnumbered by those in which you feel you have little meaningful to contribute.</blockquote>

Verification