Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7507572" data-attributes="member: 6919838">To me this gets back to a fundamental fallacy... the value of ABC. The types of challenges presented or chosen to the groups are what set the value of things. A group which rarely scouts and has a lot of mostly heavy armor types is not one where stealth matters. Nor is it that good for say holding a wall against zombie hordes. It really comes down to the GM campaign level choices (and the players characters choices) as to how valuable various traits will be seen in play and so... without effort to push balance to force it it doesn't just occur naturally.This is where imo it is vital to have a good basis of shared understanding about what the campaign will be like before chargen&nbsp; **and** for the GM to shape to some degree the challenges are like based on chargen outcomes. (Anaethema to some)If it's important to you that survival proficiency be &quot;balanced&quot; as an option beside proficiency in stealth, then you have to look at how often your challenges make either useful.But for most any system it's not that easy.That's because in 5e different attributes feed different skills plus they do other things and different skills are acquired from different class, race and background which do other different things. So it's that final &quot;package&quot; called a character that is really the smallest bit you can take as balance or not fodder.Then again, the designer said the game was not designed to be balanced for some one on one class vs class character competitions so maybe the weights for the scale start at four man party.To me...Balance in play is more critical than balance on paper and balance in play means character scale and wont happen by accident but by decision and choice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7507572, member: 6919838"] To me this gets back to a fundamental fallacy... the value of ABC. The types of challenges presented or chosen to the groups are what set the value of things. A group which rarely scouts and has a lot of mostly heavy armor types is not one where stealth matters. Nor is it that good for say holding a wall against zombie hordes. It really comes down to the GM campaign level choices (and the players characters choices) as to how valuable various traits will be seen in play and so... without effort to push balance to force it it doesn't just occur naturally. This is where imo it is vital to have a good basis of shared understanding about what the campaign will be like before chargen **and** for the GM to shape to some degree the challenges are like based on chargen outcomes. (Anaethema to some) If it's important to you that survival proficiency be "balanced" as an option beside proficiency in stealth, then you have to look at how often your challenges make either useful. But for most any system it's not that easy. That's because in 5e different attributes feed different skills plus they do other things and different skills are acquired from different class, race and background which do other different things. So it's that final "package" called a character that is really the smallest bit you can take as balance or not fodder. Then again, the designer said the game was not designed to be balanced for some one on one class vs class character competitions so maybe the weights for the scale start at four man party. To me... Balance in play is more critical than balance on paper and balance in play means character scale and wont happen by accident but by decision and choice. [/QUOTE]

Verification