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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Garmorn" data-source="post: 5022751" data-attributes="member: 430">Firelance is right, but Lanefan response points out a view that seems to be common.  I deleted an earlier post because until I read this tread also had this view.  There is a solid reason for the gradual shift in how the characters/game are balanced.   The only way to truly balance a game is to make sure it is balanced at the lowest level that every one is going to play the same.The campaign level of AD&D 1e did not work because so many groups never played pass 10th level.  The concept was for the game to be balance a cross the campaign but how can that happen when there is no standard campaign length?  This is also the weakness of 2e's balance problem.  For 3e the period was a day with 4 combats but how many varied from that regularly?  4e is now geared to the lowest possible time frame an encounter.  Long term balance is now more of the DM job.Lots of us hated or did not think 1e was balanced not because of house rules but because of different campaign lengths/max levels different groups played to.  This severely changed the dynamics of the game.  It caused some to make lots of house rule (many were pretty bad) or use other means to fix the problem caused by the changed expectations. Now I not saying 4e is perfect, or 1e is horrible, but for balance between players in power and spotlight I would not play in a pickup or short 1e game.  Give me a really good DM who I know would run it until 20th and I will enjoy it.  For quick pickup when stuck in an airport over night give me 4e.</blockquote>

Verification