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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 9184864" data-attributes="member: 996">If you like casting spells, sure. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />D&D is an imbalanced game.  In 5e, "the martial/caster gap' is a notorious manifestation of that.  In prior editions it was called "LFQW."   <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />There's a difference between optimal and viable.  In a balanced game, a choice being arguably optimal (typically for a specific purpose) does not render other choices non-viable.  In an imbalanced game it very easily can.The designer deciding what genre of TTRPG he's going to create, and the GM deciding on the setting & themes of his campaign.  The designer chooses what to include, and the GM what to ban.That's what balance does, maximizes the choices available to the player that are both meaningful and viable.  Whether another player in 4e thinks the Warlord's abilities are appropriate or not, a player who does find them appropriate could choose it, and play it without overshadowing other players or under-contributing to the success of the party.How?  What do you mean "hurts the game?"I think it's clear to see how imbalanced choices, like trap options, hurt the game, both in the sense of making it a worse game, and in the sense of detracting from play experience.  How does, for instance, making a former trap choice viable harm the game?Of course, trying, and failing, to balance a game can make it even more imbalanced.  For instance, over-compensating for a too-weak option could make it so OP that it renders multiple other options non-viable.  Removing options instead of balancing them is partially self-defeating - there /will/ be less options - tt only has a shot at improving balance when you remove a relatively small number of OP options, making many-more previously non-viable options worthwhile again.  Balancing an OP option has the same benefit, and retains the option.For instance, in 5e, it would be fruitless to toss out full casters, even if it might make some martial choices more viable, because there are so many of them, the gain of a few newly-viable choices isn't worth the loss of many overall choices.Conversely, removing martial options is a small decrease in overall choices, and just removes traps, the game isn't much improved, but it's being more honest with itself.Nerfing casters might be a lot of work, since there are so may of them.  Buffing martials to the heights of casters in 5e or 3e would mean making them far more powerful/versatile than ever before. You're free to believe that.  There is absolutely no evidence it is the case.Champion does relegate you to a more specific, less substantial role than EK or BM, which deliver similar DPR and geater versatility - and, both of which, in turn, fall short of what a full caster will open up for you.  Correct, the choice of EK or BM or Chamipion - and, back at 1st Fighter or any other class - are equally weighted, the only 'cost' of taking one is not taking the other.  If you play a wizard, you received the same 'consolaton prized' - playing the class that's closest to the concept you wanted to pay - as if would someone playing the Champion.  There's nothing to justify either class being better or worse than the other.</blockquote>

Verification