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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9174980" data-attributes="member: 7025508">So I snipped the semantics bit. I just say that I think you're conflating different things thus making communication harder. Balance is each participant having equal impact over the course of the game. Yes, a game that offers the participant more ways to affect the course of the game might be deemed better, but not because it is balanced better. Balance is about the parity of the agency, not about the amount of it. These are separate things, please stop confusingly conflating them. But again, you're merely replacing one assumption with another. As long some classes rely more on limited expendable resources than others there will be some refresh rate at which they will be balanced, and if you veer from that imbalance will occur*. Now you could do what 4e did and homogenise classes by giving them all the same resource structure. However, this was not well received.(*Note, you don't need to always hit this for game to be balanced, if some days favour some classes and some other days some other classes, as long as it roughly averages out the game remains balanced.)Yeah, it is a fair point that more flexible classes are less impacted by the varying situation. But should we then force all classes to be the same level of specialisation? Cannot focused specialists exist, or is it that jack of all trades like bards cannot exist? Or do we say that flexibility should have "cost" and we lower the power of generalists? But how much, based on what assumptions? And aren't specialists then just plainly overpowered in campaigns that focus on their specialisation? Seriously, this stuff is complicated.</blockquote>

Verification