Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7421054" data-attributes="member: 16814">And I was saying it's not.&nbsp; A party of all wizards in 1e, for instance, uses daily recharge mechanics for all characters and is also balanced among characters.&nbsp; 5e does a pretty good job of class balance while using multiple ability recharge balance points.&nbsp; It also has warts, but it's not a necessary condition that a game be encounter balance to have class balance.Instead, your point seems to be 'to have encounter focused play your need to have encounter balanced abilities' which is pretty trivial on it's face -- you're almost stating a tautology.&nbsp; Of course encounter balanced abilities lend themselves to encounter focused play.&nbsp; The bit about class balance, on the other hand, seems tacked on and non sequitur.&nbsp; &quot;Unrealized.&quot;&nbsp; Unless you've invented a new definition for that word, of course, it means 'not achieved.'&nbsp; IE, &quot;failed&quot; to achieve.&nbsp; However, I'm willing to concede I may be very wrong, as it occurs to me that I assumed you meant &quot;character&quot; archetype but you actually said &quot;player&quot; archetype.&nbsp; It occurs to me that I'm not sure what player archetypes you're talking about (and, surely you're talking about players because you don't confuse the two terms) nor exactly how game mechanics would prevent a player from realizing his archetype.&nbsp; Could you elaborate on this?Semantic arguments can be quite surprisingly reversed, don't you find?&nbsp; I assume that's why you're perfectly willing at accept other's definitions and phrasing of things and try so hard to avoid semantic arguments yourself.&nbsp; I find your wisdom enlightening.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7421054, member: 16814"] And I was saying it's not. A party of all wizards in 1e, for instance, uses daily recharge mechanics for all characters and is also balanced among characters. 5e does a pretty good job of class balance while using multiple ability recharge balance points. It also has warts, but it's not a necessary condition that a game be encounter balance to have class balance. Instead, your point seems to be 'to have encounter focused play your need to have encounter balanced abilities' which is pretty trivial on it's face -- you're almost stating a tautology. Of course encounter balanced abilities lend themselves to encounter focused play. The bit about class balance, on the other hand, seems tacked on and non sequitur. "Unrealized." Unless you've invented a new definition for that word, of course, it means 'not achieved.' IE, "failed" to achieve. However, I'm willing to concede I may be very wrong, as it occurs to me that I assumed you meant "character" archetype but you actually said "player" archetype. It occurs to me that I'm not sure what player archetypes you're talking about (and, surely you're talking about players because you don't confuse the two terms) nor exactly how game mechanics would prevent a player from realizing his archetype. Could you elaborate on this? Semantic arguments can be quite surprisingly reversed, don't you find? I assume that's why you're perfectly willing at accept other's definitions and phrasing of things and try so hard to avoid semantic arguments yourself. I find your wisdom enlightening. [/QUOTE]

Verification