Haffrung Helleyes said:
That's true, to a point.
Groups do differ. Some groups probably don't care about game balance at all. But most do . And I would argue that prestige classes like the Frenzied Berserker aren't going to be balanced or fun for the vast majority of groups out there.
Ken
You'd argue incorrectly.
See, you're starting off on the wrong foot by saying "some groups probably don't care about game balance at all." Right off the bat, you're implying that there's one universal yardstick of balance, and anyone who feels otherwise clearly doesn't care about keeping things balanced.
In fact, you can have multiple groups who each care
deeply about balance, but disagree strongly on what balance actually
means.
For instance, I have no problem with the mystic theurge or the true necromancer prestige classes. I believe they are balanced in play, that their limited abilities
here make up for their increased abilities
there. I know other people, people who are just as concerned with balance as I am, who won't allow them because they feel they're unbalanced. I'm a game designer. So's the guy I most recently argued with. Does that mean one of us doesn't care about balance? Nope; just means we disagree on where the line is drawn in this particular case.
We've got a frenzied berzerker in the game I play in on Thursdays. He does an
obscene amount of damage, sure. But he's also caused us as many problems as he's solved. Would I allow one in a game I was running? I don't know. But I also don't know if I agree that it's unbalanced--and if it is, it's only by a marginal amount.
And "fun" is even more of a subjective term. Some people look for very different things out of D&D. I have friends who are happy playing it as almost a pure tactical game. I have others who would be happy to never see a battlemat or a miniature in their lives. I have friends who hate dwarves and wish they were removed from the game. I have friends who think dwarves are the coolest race ever.
Quite simply, you cannot expect to be taken seriously if you're going to make sweeping proclamations about what's balanced, or what's fun, or what "most people" want, or what "adults like." (Yes, I'm addressing more than one poster here.) Because the fact is, you're wrong. Always. No matter what you say. You may be speaking for yourself. You may be speaking for everyone you know. But you are not speaking for everyone. Ever.
If you want to talk about specific ideas--like the illumians--and whether or not you think they were good ideas, hey, great. I'm all for it. But when someone steps in claiming that WotC's designers don't know how to do their jobs, or that any single book indicates that the company has lost sight of what they're doing, well, that person immediately gets a head start in my "not worth listening to" book. The first mark of an intelligent argument is one that acknowledges it's not the only viewpoint.
