NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kae'Yoss" data-source="post: 3740198" data-attributes="member: 4134">Sure, complete balance isn't possible, but that doesn't mean that we should completely ignore it. And I don't think that valuing balance highly means that we have two updates per month with changed abilities. This is D&D, not WoW or some other computer game.I think the game system should be thoroughly playtested, all wrinkles ironed out, everything as balanced as possible, and then released. After that, unless something really turns out to be a problem, there should be no revision. (Errata's something completely different - it fixes errors, not problems). Sure, this will not produce a perfectly balanced game (which, as I said, is impossible), but it will get pretty close, and it won't necessitate revision after revision.Not quite true. It's true that only the DM can possibly stop them all, but a solid set of rules will make it harder, and thus the DMs job easier.You can't spare the DM from looking out for, say, a dwarf (with racial variant V) fighter (with class variant C) that uses weapon X, feats Y1, Y2 and Y3 together with manoevure Z to become immune to most types of damage. But playing a dwarf fighter should not automatically result in a overpowered character.That really was a mess, but apart from that, I can't think of a rule that was changed more than twice (or even once)Better than having lots of sillyness because balance wasn't considered, don't you think?That's every game's ultimate rule. If you don't have fun, why play?... to you. But not to everyone. What is the worst? Death by drowning or death by burning?You make it seem like those are the only choices. Of course, there are more than that. I can see a system where losing because of a single roll is very unlikely (because, let's face it, losing a fight, and maybe even a character that you have played for months, because of a single roll - not one final roll preceded by a number of other rolls, but one roll that can end the battle no matter what) but you still get to turn enemies into pigs:We stop using scores of abilities that circumvent HP, and make the consequences of losing all your HP more varied. So say the polymorph attack/spell deals X amount of damage (requiring an attack roll or allowing a save to negate/lessen the damage), and if it blows you below 0, you turn into a pig instead of croaking.Stuff like that is quite problematic. For one, if you catch someone days away from civilisation, you'll kill him without him having a chance. I know I don't want that do be done to my character. If you like that sort of thing, go ahead, but I prefer to be able to get out of every situation (not guaranteed, but you should have a fighting chance all the time, unless you put yourself into a really stupid situation and ignored several warnings), and don't arbitrarily kill off players, either.I think arbitrary things like this poison should have no rules - they're completely up to the DM. Tell me: Are you having fun in a "realistic" game? Are you enjoying yourself if there's drama? Some will say so, and so I think it will still be possible under 4e. But some people really hate that stuff, and those people should not have it forced upon them. So I think the best way to do it is have this stuff be optional.</blockquote>

Verification