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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5806630" data-attributes="member: 2067">I'm gonna go on record as saying I am not personally a fan of balance over the course of 20 levels (e.g: fighters start stronger, wizards become stronger).The reason for this is practical: it takes about a year to play 10 levels. I don't want to suck for a year, and I don't want my friend to suck for a year. Or six months. Or one month. Or even two weeks. That level of balance is too distant. It demands too much patience from Sucky McGee.I prefer a level of balance that is consistent within the session. It's OK if I suck in one scene, or my friend sucks in one scene, as long as we both get to rock during the four-hour session at some point. Which is why I like the idea of separating out the three main prongs of D&D (exploration, roleplaying, and combat). I'm fine sucking in combat if I rock exploration, or sucking in exploration if I can kick but in roleplaying, or sucking in roleplaying if I can annihilate my enemies in combat. That doesn't sound like the way 5e is going, which is fine -- my understanding is that it is trying to give everyone a way to contribute to all three elements in different ways. As long as those contributions are really very different, I'll be pretty happy. I can rock combat with my buddy, as long as we do it in remarkably different ways. Maybe my buddy deals consistent damage over the long term, while I'm all spike and lull, spike and lull. Maybe our other buddy deals with recharge rates. Another one rolls to see if anything happens. Whatever. Point being, balance isn't a micro-managed, every-single-round kind of thing.</blockquote>

Verification