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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9151212" data-attributes="member: 8461">Right, but I'm not sure what the salience of that is, beyond a design philosophy that what you're choosing from should be (presumably equally) "viable" with regard to what they bring to the (game) table. I'm suggesting that such a thing can't be systematized to any meaningful degree, at least not without restricting the scope of play to the point where it's going to hurt verisimilitude for a lot of people.In my experience, people don't mind a modest (however they define that) lack of balance so long as the methods of interacting with the game world are varied enough, and understood sufficiently, that they have various options open to them, beyond what's on their character sheet.I once was in a small group that was facing a swarm of flesh-eating insects, who were too small to be vulnerable to weapon damage. In theory, our mage should have had the situation well-in hand with an AoE damaging spell, whereas there was nothing my barbarian could have done. But the mage hadn't prepped any such spell, and the rogue didn't have any alchemist's fire or other non-magical attacks. So I thought outside the box, and decided that since the bugs were crawling along a flat stone floor with no grooves, overturning a big heavy table on them would squish them. The GM loved the idea, it saved the party from a lot of damage, and my character took the table as a shield for himself, appending "Tableshield" to his name (ripping off Tolkien, as all gamers do at some point). It was great, and it had nothing to do with balance and everything to do with verisimilitude.</blockquote>

Verification