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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 6260182" data-attributes="member: 205">Good post. (Couldn't XP, sorry.)But I don't think it's particularly mysterious to understand where these distinctions arise.  In games where the players either don't have or don't exert much system mastery, or the DM uses a strong hand in creating encounters to emphasize spotlight balance, LFQW simply isn't going to arise as a perceivable issue.  And that playstyle often overlaps with your 3rd rail, where players have internalized non-balance as being part and parcel of the class definition.In my 3.X/now PF group, one player often fondly refers back to his monk with the comment "I liked that guy.  Boy, did he suck."  It's pretty much a table meme at this point that monks are awful.  But it's just assumed that sucking is part of the reason you choose a monk.  Not because of the greater difficulty, but sometimes it's just funny to play a bad character.On the flip side, in our high level game, the 19th level witch (an alternate wizard) cohort of one of the characters singlehandedly won a combat against multiple balors by using Time Stop.  The table reaction?  "What are you going to do?  It's Time Stop, that's just what it does."  Again, its overpowered nature is just assumed to be part and parcel of the spell definition, and by extrapolation, high level wizards are just better.Do I like this particular approach?  Not really.  But I've become sensitive to just how ingrained certain expectations of the D&D experience are to a wide swath of gamers.  My enjoyment of constant evolution and new concepts often leads me to be the odd man out in my play group's preferences.</blockquote>

Verification