Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7155026" data-attributes="member: 15700">That is a lot to answer.&nbsp; But I'll keep it pretty macro. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />To me, balance is in the context of the game session, and not a particular encounter.&nbsp; Or even a particular pillar.&nbsp; I'm old school, playing AD&amp;D from 1981 to 2012, so that sets my bias.&nbsp; But back in the day, niche protection was not only a thing, but a feature for a lot of people.&nbsp; I.e., it's perfectly OK and balanced for the fighter to excel at combat, while the thief excels at the exploration pillar.&nbsp; It's perfectly OK for a magic user to dominate one encounter, but be less effective at the others.&nbsp; Resource management, planning, and the such is important for such a magic user.Therefore, I am not concerned with a +1 or +2 difference to impact my balance issues.&nbsp; It would have to be extremely different to be an issue, and give that PC a major benefit in all 3 pillars for me to consider them unbalanced.&nbsp; To me, player ability has a much greater outcome to effectiveness than a PC stat.*Edit* for balancing encounters, my answer is pretty much the same as lowkey's.&nbsp; I really don't.&nbsp; Only on a general level.&nbsp; A bigger driving factor is what makes sense for the game world and scenario.&nbsp; Not every encounter should be fought.&nbsp; Sometimes they are there for other reasons and will seem like a cakewalk if you fight.&nbsp; And sometimes the party better run away or avoid the encounter or they will certainly die.&nbsp; That's up the the PCs to have the control to decide when and where to do these things.&nbsp; Very little hand holding from me as a DM.&nbsp; And my players feel like they have more agency when they have the choice and it's not me just lining up encounters for them to fight over and over.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7155026, member: 15700"] That [I]is [/I]a lot to answer. But I'll keep it pretty macro. ;) To me, balance is in the context of the game session, and not a particular encounter. Or even a particular pillar. I'm old school, playing AD&D from 1981 to 2012, so that sets my bias. But back in the day, niche protection was not only a thing, but a feature for a lot of people. I.e., it's perfectly OK and balanced for the fighter to excel at combat, while the thief excels at the exploration pillar. It's perfectly OK for a magic user to dominate one encounter, but be less effective at the others. Resource management, planning, and the such is important for such a magic user. Therefore, I am not concerned with a +1 or +2 difference to impact my balance issues. It would have to be extremely different to be an issue, and give that PC a major benefit in all 3 pillars for me to consider them unbalanced. To me, player ability has a much greater outcome to effectiveness than a PC stat. *Edit* for balancing encounters, my answer is pretty much the same as lowkey's. I really don't. Only on a general level. A bigger driving factor is what makes sense for the game world and scenario. Not every encounter should be fought. Sometimes they are there for other reasons and will seem like a cakewalk if you fight. And sometimes the party better run away or avoid the encounter or they will certainly die. That's up the the PCs to have the control to decide when and where to do these things. Very little hand holding from me as a DM. And my players feel like they have more agency when they have the choice and it's not me just lining up encounters for them to fight over and over. [/QUOTE]

Verification