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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="XunValdorl_of_Kilsek" data-source="post: 6237629" data-attributes="member: 6762534">Here is a conclusion that I've come to.Balance and DPR: Now I'm not talking about a rules balance where someone finds a way to get infinite attacks or does 500 points of damage at level 1 (which still doesn't bother me because no sane DM is ever going to allow something that has obviously abused the rules). I'm talking about this balance between classes with regards to damage. The fun argument doesn't apply because it's absurd. If you really want to go there then we could do the old "I'm not having fun if I don't win, I'm not having fun if I can't have the equipment I want, I'm not having fun if I ever get killed, so let's only allow legitimate arguments. It's unnecessary to be perfectly honest. If you want to run around doing massive amounts of damage then you play a barbarian or fighter or whatever. People seem to have this notion that if the barbarian does a hell of a lot more damage than the fighter then everyone will just play a barbarian. Not true, just like everyone doesn't play wizards. I will tell you what this style of game promotes, glut. It promotes option glut such as feats, spells, magic items, and backgrounds. By focusing on combat and DPR, people begin to think that only a few combat feats, in a specific combo, are the ones that are worth taking and the others are not. I knew plenty of people that used to take those certain feats that weren't optimal, but helped their character have that specific concept. This type of selection was frowned upon and made it seem like your choice was wrong. Wizards of the Coast did nothing to tone down this type of behaviour because all they did was come out with more and more combat related options and less out of combat ones. In my opinion, combat balance is not that important as some make it out to be.</blockquote>

Verification