Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7155376" data-attributes="member: 22779">Well, that goes back to &quot;deliberately gimping&quot; your character.&nbsp; Sure, there's no reason you cannot play a fighter armed with a spork, but, at the end of the day, the most rational choice is to pick up something that does a little more damage.And, imbalance like this leads to truncated concepts.&nbsp; Yup, you could, in 2e say, play a sword and board fighter with a mace.&nbsp; Certainly you could do that.&nbsp; Great.&nbsp; Now, your character is dealing half as much damage and getting hit pretty much exactly as often (5% less often) than my fighter.Now, whether that bothers your or not isn't the issue.&nbsp; The point is, it's imbalanced.&nbsp; There's no reason that my character should double your damage.&nbsp; There's no particular reason that once concept should be that much better than all other concepts, unless, of course, you want to funnel the game towards that one concept.Think of it this way.&nbsp; My character gets +5 levels at chargen than your character.&nbsp; Shouldn't be a problem right?&nbsp; After all, balance is secondary to concept, so, the fact that I have 5 more levels than you shouldn't bother you in the least.Somehow I think that most groups would be unhappy with that arrangement.&nbsp; And, even if they are happy, it's still not balanced. Now, in a balanced system, concept comes first.&nbsp; After all, your concept and my concept are roughly in the same ballpark when it comes to effectiveness, so, no worries.&nbsp; You can take your concept, I'll take mine, and everyone's groovy.&nbsp; but, in a balanced system, the most rational choice is to take the most effective option.&nbsp; Do you have to?&nbsp; Nope, but, the system is certainly pushing you that way.&nbsp; So, longswords were king in AD&amp;D.&nbsp; Two weapon fighting was king in 2e.&nbsp; Casters at higher levels ruled 3e.&nbsp; 5e, OTOH, is largely pretty solidly balanced.&nbsp; I'm drawing a blank so far on any really clear winners.&nbsp; Dex over Str maybe, but, the jury's still out on that one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7155376, member: 22779"] Well, that goes back to "deliberately gimping" your character. Sure, there's no reason you cannot play a fighter armed with a spork, but, at the end of the day, the most rational choice is to pick up something that does a little more damage. And, imbalance like this leads to truncated concepts. Yup, you could, in 2e say, play a sword and board fighter with a mace. Certainly you could do that. Great. Now, your character is dealing half as much damage and getting hit pretty much exactly as often (5% less often) than my fighter. Now, whether that bothers your or not isn't the issue. The point is, it's imbalanced. There's no reason that my character should double your damage. There's no particular reason that once concept should be that much better than all other concepts, unless, of course, you want to funnel the game towards that one concept. Think of it this way. My character gets +5 levels at chargen than your character. Shouldn't be a problem right? After all, balance is secondary to concept, so, the fact that I have 5 more levels than you shouldn't bother you in the least. Somehow I think that most groups would be unhappy with that arrangement. And, even if they are happy, it's still not balanced. Now, in a balanced system, concept comes first. After all, your concept and my concept are roughly in the same ballpark when it comes to effectiveness, so, no worries. You can take your concept, I'll take mine, and everyone's groovy. but, in a balanced system, the most rational choice is to take the most effective option. Do you have to? Nope, but, the system is certainly pushing you that way. So, longswords were king in AD&D. Two weapon fighting was king in 2e. Casters at higher levels ruled 3e. 5e, OTOH, is largely pretty solidly balanced. I'm drawing a blank so far on any really clear winners. Dex over Str maybe, but, the jury's still out on that one. [/QUOTE]

Verification