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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mafisto" data-source="post: 1552085" data-attributes="member: 15183">Group balanceI think rushlight has finally hit the nail on the head. I've seen in this thread a lot of dancing around the core issue of power-gaming vs. role-gaming; ultimately, it's about game balance. There are countless threads on this board about balanced feats, skills, PrCs and variant rules, all with meticulous attention ot the details. However, isn't is a prime consideration that a character could be inherently unbalancing? If a character is a round balance of good combat and flavor design, it will inherently be less effective in combat. That is a foregone conclusion - you must sacrifice one for the other. When a character is designed exclusively to maximise effectiveness in dice-rolling contests, that conflict no longer exists. You will always have the most effective character if you put no consideration into 'useless' flavor skills and feats. So unbalance is the principle issue. If this thread were about someone who had designed an uber-class and played it in a campaign with comparatively weaker characters, everyone would be hopping all over the place shouting 'balance!'. But when a powergamer upsets the balance of an otherwise non-power-gaming party, it's about 'earning it' and 'having the better design'? Hardly. If you want to min-max or powergame, make it clear up front. See if others are willing to accomodate the fact that when the dice hit the table, you will almost always be the 'winner'. If the other players are not willing to deal with your min-maxed character, then don't play it. Conversely, if you're planning on playing a flavor character in a min-maxed party, don't expect to have a whole lot of fun with dice rolls. Adjust your style of play to the group - that's just common sense.</blockquote>

Verification