Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5976312" data-attributes="member: 32536">Yes, the optimizer's mind is something that should be embraced. If the game is balanced and fair for the optimizer, it is balanced and fair for everyone. There is a reason that games like Magic: The Gathering and all competitive videogames rely most heavily on the feedback provided by high-level or professional competitive players in order to create balance. They're the people who know what they are talking about.Generally speaking, a lot of people are simply unaware of how powerful various choices in the game are. Not that many people are aware that, for example, pretty much every damage spell in 3E (like fireball or lightning bolt) is the weakest spell available to a wizard for that level. Even various designers working for WotC or Paizo seem unaware of the fact that certain feats are much stronger or weaker than intended. Things like this, where choices that seem normal and fair on the surface are actually overly strong or weak, can have a big negative impact on people's games that they never intended, such as when a player who doesn't care about optimization accidentally becomes much stronger or weaker than the other players. The optimizer's mindset is the only thing that fix such problems.The problem with this argument is twofold. First, you are simply not keeping your definition of &quot;specialist&quot; consistent across those different examples. A &quot;specialist in nature&quot; is nowhere near the same thing as &quot;a specialist in making whirlwind trip attacks with a spiked chain every turn&quot; (a typical one-trick fighter build that the 3E rules encouraged). Second, you're neglecting most of the other dedicated weapon-using classes.Also, I'd argue that you're forgetting that part of the approach you are suggesting is the rationale behind the 3E Fighter, which ended up making the 3E Fighter a very, very bad class that is pretty widely hated for good reason.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 5976312, member: 32536"] Yes, the optimizer's mind is something that should be embraced. If the game is balanced and fair for the optimizer, it is balanced and fair for everyone. There is a reason that games like Magic: The Gathering and all competitive videogames rely most heavily on the feedback provided by high-level or professional competitive players in order to create balance. They're the people who know what they are talking about. Generally speaking, a lot of people are simply unaware of how powerful various choices in the game are. Not that many people are aware that, for example, pretty much every damage spell in 3E (like fireball or lightning bolt) is the weakest spell available to a wizard for that level. Even various designers working for WotC or Paizo seem unaware of the fact that certain feats are much stronger or weaker than intended. Things like this, where choices that seem normal and fair on the surface are actually overly strong or weak, can have a big negative impact on people's games that they never intended, such as when a player who doesn't care about optimization accidentally becomes much stronger or weaker than the other players. The optimizer's mindset is the [i]only[/i] thing that fix such problems. The problem with this argument is twofold. First, you are simply not keeping your definition of "specialist" consistent across those different examples. A "specialist in nature" is nowhere near the same thing as "a specialist in making whirlwind trip attacks with a spiked chain every turn" (a typical one-trick fighter build that the 3E rules encouraged). Second, you're neglecting most of the other dedicated weapon-using classes. Also, I'd argue that you're forgetting that part of the approach you are suggesting is the rationale behind the 3E Fighter, which ended up making the 3E Fighter a very, very bad class that is pretty widely hated for good reason. [/QUOTE]

Verification