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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5977240" data-attributes="member: 54877">The true design trade-off is not between balance and variety, but between getting the mix of those right versus the time to do it and test it.  Making everything truly the same throughout is one way to get balance.  Ignoring balance entirely is one way to get variety.  The more difficult but rewarding method is including another monkey in the barrel, yet nonetheless making it work well enough.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" /> Or in other words, even 3E didn't give all fighters a flat 10 hit points and all wizards 20 slots of a spell that does 11 points of magic missile damage to all selected targets in sight.  And even 4E didn't make a wizard standing next to a fighter a null question, which would have been the case had half the things said about its sameness had any basis in fact.  So where "nirvana" equal some perfect mix of balance and variety, we are talking about a scale more like this, than 3E and 4E on opposite poles: No balance ------------- 3E -------- Nirvana -------- 4E ------------- No variety. (Don't read anything into relative differences on the graph, here.  It is not that exact of a comparison. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />)</blockquote>

Verification