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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6239338" data-attributes="member: 42582">Why is balance being defined in terms of combat capability? It is possible to have a balance of mechanical effectiveness across PC builds without having all PCs be equally effective in combat - for instance, by having some be better at social conflict.Admittedly this does depend upon the RPG in question having action resolution mechanics that extend beyond combat as a site of conflict, but that particular hurdle in RPG design was cleared 15 years ago or more.I'm not sure what system you have in mind. The only edtion of D&D I know of where this particular build is possible is 2nd ed AD&D (using some priest variant) - in all other editions clerics, who are the best healers, are also at least passably effective melee combatants.4e permits approximations to it via pacifist cleric builds.I don't entirely see how this is an argument against balance. If you're against balance, what does it even mean to say that the system "expects" a player to be mechanically effective to some or other degree?The whole idea that I could trade down offensive capability in return for healing capability, and thereby remain a valuable contributor to combat, seems to rest on an assumption that balance of mechanical effectiveness is important and should be preserved acros builds.When I think of systems that do permit the building of a "white mage", like Rolemaster or Burning Wheel, having such a character in a combat team is a hindrance. (Those systems have little to no magical healing at a speed that is relevant in combat.) That is not to say that a balance of mechanical effectiveness is not possible in such systems (although it is not particularly a concern of either of them); it's just that any such balance would occur across the entirety of play, and not simply within combat.I meant that it arose with 2nd ed AD&D. It has certainly continued to the present time, although as an observer of 3E conversations (though not a player of 3E) I would say that at least sometimes "concept" is defined in purely mechanical terms, rather than fictional/story/archetypical terms, which is what I think the idea of "character concetpt" originally referred to.I don't think this idea of "character concept" was widely used in thinking and playing of classic D&D. Look, for instance, at [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]'s quote from Gygax: characters are to be judged in terms of the way they participate in "the competition", not in terms of their exemplification of some fictional type.OK, but there is no edition of D&D which even approximates this, so it seems something of a red herring (or perhaps a straw man?) within the overall discussion.</blockquote>

Verification