Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 4728253" data-attributes="member: 4892">I've been reading along and generally agreed with this statement. But then I thought back and wondered how we kept the imbalance from frustrating the players and the DM alike.Pre-3E D&D had two factors in place that helped keep spellcasters in check. The first was static saving throws. It did matter what level the spell was or how intelligent a wizard you were. That equally high-level fighter had the same chance to save against your spell as he did against your apprentice's spells. When 3E changed this it seemed like a good idea. In the end with a multitude of ways to push your spell DCs higher and higher, the poor fighter with his weak saves fell to far behind to resist your magic. And even if he did there were more and more spells that avoided saves altogether.The second factor was spell disruption. A smart 3E wizard could go his whole career without having to make a Concentration check. But I seem to remember many a 1E spell being disrupted by an enemy archer or a charging fighter.Both of these gave a bit more balance between classes than it seemed back then.I basically agree with avin. No player should be left wondering why they bothered to show up at the table. I also add that no player should feel they are handicapped because they can't afford to buy all the books or don't have the time or inclination to read a slew of splatbooks.Real-life examples:2E AD&D Kits: The players who didn't have the time or inclination to search for the "best" kits felt cheated. And the disparity in power between kits was terrible. One of the FR kits made the cleric in the group a better illusionist and thief than the I/T because it plopped the entire illusion school into his known cleric spell-list and added thieving skills to his repertoire at no cost to his normal cleric abilities. While the "archer" kit went something like +1 with bows, -5 to attack with all other weapons, have a nice day!3E Feats/Prestige Classes/New Classes/Multiclassing/Spells: This wild mosh pit allowed those with the time to pour through every new book to come up with Angel Summoner characters while the other players were BMX Bandits. If I challenged the latter, the former would step in and make them feel useless by anihilating the foes. If I challenged the former, the others would feel useless as they were unable to contribute effectively and often had to hide or die. This problem didn't exist so much at the onset of 3E, but grew over time. And our group likes new options, so please no cries of "you should have banned this/you should have stuck with core." I believe a system can present new options in a balanced way and I believe 4E is achieving that so far. Only time will tell.Rifts: I wanted to play a mutant animal. I had my cool concept. The GM approved and liked my PC. His girlfriend played a dragon. Tanks. Not Thanks, tanks. As in mobile artillery units. I could have run up, dodging gunfire, climbing onto said vehicle, ripping open the top or bluffing my way in to fight the crew. But long before I could get there the dragin would take out three at a time with a tail sweep. Oh, so I should go take care of the ground troops right? Nah! She'll just breath fire on them and take out 50 at a time. I sat there bored and useless and would find it hard to play the game again unless I was sure I was playing with a stellar GM.All of the above talk of balance goes out the window when you are looking at a game that doesn't focus on combat. In games that focus more on the role-playing side everyone can contribute to the fun of the game no matter what the combat-power disparity is. As long as everyone plays along with the RP aspect of the game.</blockquote>

Verification