Ganymede81
First Post
So it's bad design if an option is sub-par for one character I make but a great fit for another? ???
I play a 1/2ling with a str of 7. Does this make long swords bad design?
You're not familiar with the basic game design precept that upgrade/advancement options should represent difficult choices in lieu of no-brainer choices?
Ok, imagine you had the choice between two abilities. The abilities are essentially the same, but the first ability does double the damage of the second ability. This is an example of poor game design because players will generally make the easy decision to pick the first, more damaging, ability. Granted, that choice gets messier in a game like D&D because the available upgrades are not perfectly fungible, but it is still possible to identify when an upgrade suffers from this design flaw.
One example is the greataxe compared to the greatsword or maul. Outside of certain corner cases (half orcs, etc.), the latter weapons are simply better. Setting the greataxe at 1d12 damage instead of 2d6 damage was simply a bad design choice. (Then again, even that straightforward example can be messy since someone can say "greatswords are expensive" or "mauls can't cut ropes.")