Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mournblade94" data-source="post: 4727166" data-attributes="member: 74608">It is just as easy to determine odds in any system with which the DM is competent as long as they have a descent mathematics background.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I can't agree with this because if the DM knows the abilities of the class then calibrations can be made. It is like taring the measuring boat to stick with the scale example.&nbsp;&nbsp;I am with you 100% there. I don't always make encounters to players level range because sometimes it is fun to just let your party have fun tearing through encounters, and sometimes its fun making encounters you really don't want them to pass, but if they do it could accelerate their goal. &nbsp;You do not need the character concept balance which is central to 4e to accomplish this. If you know how the player's classes work, you can get just as good a feel for where the party is on scale with encounters, whether you are using 4e or 1st edition lack of balance (which for fighter vs caster was corrected by spell casting interuption)&nbsp;&nbsp;I do not think that not having balance between classes means the rules do not work properly. Ok let me state it doesn't matter for a cooperative RPG. 3rd edition worked fine even with the wizard having the edge.&nbsp;Balance is not the be all and end all. In fact it sometimes does not make sense. Age of Empires, Nope I meant Empire Earth makes no sense a mech can get taken down by a trebuchet. In Star Wars, by and large the Jedi of equal level to any other class should be the more powerful. it is the way the world works. D&amp;D is not WOW, it was not necessary to strike the balance that MMO's achieve. Especially with a PvP component. 3rd edition sold just fine without perfect balance. Over any other RPG.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mournblade94, post: 4727166, member: 74608"] It is just as easy to determine odds in any system with which the DM is competent as long as they have a descent mathematics background. I can't agree with this because if the DM knows the abilities of the class then calibrations can be made. It is like taring the measuring boat to stick with the scale example. I am with you 100% there. I don't always make encounters to players level range because sometimes it is fun to just let your party have fun tearing through encounters, and sometimes its fun making encounters you really don't want them to pass, but if they do it could accelerate their goal. You do not need the character concept balance which is central to 4e to accomplish this. If you know how the player's classes work, you can get just as good a feel for where the party is on scale with encounters, whether you are using 4e or 1st edition lack of balance (which for fighter vs caster was corrected by spell casting interuption) I do not think that not having balance between classes means the rules do not work properly. Ok let me state it doesn't matter for a cooperative RPG. 3rd edition worked fine even with the wizard having the edge. Balance is not the be all and end all. In fact it sometimes does not make sense. Age of Empires, Nope I meant Empire Earth makes no sense a mech can get taken down by a trebuchet. In Star Wars, by and large the Jedi of equal level to any other class should be the more powerful. it is the way the world works. D&D is not WOW, it was not necessary to strike the balance that MMO's achieve. Especially with a PvP component. 3rd edition sold just fine without perfect balance. Over any other RPG. [/QUOTE]

Verification