Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6660685" data-attributes="member: 996">Even if the idea was for the standard game to be balanced - and I don't see a lot of reasons to believe that was the idea, if balance was on the radar, at all, it seems more like it was far behind classic feel, DM Empowerment, and validating various fan-base bugaboos - presenting a lot of optional and alternate sub-systems that might be used in any combinations clearly puts achieving any level of balance in the DM's court.&nbsp; &nbsp;I'm not really seeing a big difference between the two approaches:&nbsp; Both are trying to do the same thing, make the fighter look like a badass when slaughtering much weaker enemies.&nbsp; Neither put him in the same class as an AE attack doing enough damage to kill said enemies even on a successful save (or with auto-damage).&nbsp; I'll add a third approach, since I used it in AD&amp;D, which is adopting wargaming rules where one figure represents multiple creatures.&nbsp; You could have a mid-high level fighter base-to-base 'engage' a 'unit,' of say 6 or 8 figures, who each represented 5 or 10 orcs or goblins or whatever, and remove figures from the back of the formation as the fighter killed them.&nbsp; Come to think of it, that's really not so different from swarms/mobs, which, IIRC, 3.x introduced and 4e and 5e both retained.&nbsp; You have stats for the individual creature, but when you stuff enough of them in the same space, they get different stats as a swarm.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6660685, member: 996"] Even if the idea was for the standard game to be balanced - and I don't see a lot of reasons to believe that was the idea, if balance was on the radar, at all, it seems more like it was far behind classic feel, DM Empowerment, and validating various fan-base bugaboos - presenting a lot of optional and alternate sub-systems that might be used in any combinations clearly puts achieving any level of balance in the DM's court. I'm not really seeing a big difference between the two approaches: Both are trying to do the same thing, make the fighter look like a badass when slaughtering much weaker enemies. Neither put him in the same class as an AE attack doing enough damage to kill said enemies even on a successful save (or with auto-damage). I'll add a third approach, since I used it in AD&D, which is adopting wargaming rules where one figure represents multiple creatures. You could have a mid-high level fighter base-to-base 'engage' a 'unit,' of say 6 or 8 figures, who each represented 5 or 10 orcs or goblins or whatever, and remove figures from the back of the formation as the fighter killed them. Come to think of it, that's really not so different from swarms/mobs, which, IIRC, 3.x introduced and 4e and 5e both retained. You have stats for the individual creature, but when you stuff enough of them in the same space, they get different stats as a swarm. [/QUOTE]

Verification