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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6006177" data-attributes="member: 6698278">Well it's good enough for me because it's me.  We didn't have balance problems and I did nothing special to prevent them.  While I admit I've houseruled individual spells both because I felt one or two were overpowered or because I wanted to change the flavor of the world.  The latter of course doesn't matter for this discussion.  I have never really changed anything structural about the fighter or magic user classes.  They just worked.While it is true none of us have conclusive proof.  It is a false statement that because you don't have absolute detailed numbers that you know nothing.  I know certainly that 4e was widely rejected by many.  I know WOTC cancelled it quicker than any previous edition.  I know that many leading designers have openly rejected the game which is unprecedented for people formerly associated with WOTC.  In my hometown and on enworld's poll, 3.5e and Pathfinder BOTH were listed as being played more often than 4e.  1e/2e were about half of 4e.  This belief is why we can't reach compromise.  Is 5e unbalanced right now?Other than one guy who loves clerics, our group has never had players clammering to play casters.  I've had a wizard but often that was because I suggested someone play one.   I've never had two people both wanting to play a wizard.  I've almost always had a fighter and some multiclass variant of a fighter in my campaigns.  The fighter has been an extremely popular and very effective class.My standard is not perfect balance.  That would almost guarantee a boring and unfun game with all the stuff you'd have to do  to guarantee that.  I didn't realize even you had that standard.  So sufficient balance is not so hard to achieve for people of my persuasion.My point was that the cure is worse than the problem.AEDU was the main balance mechanism.  Perhaps the slaughtering of utility magic was another.  It's not like you've offered a hundred options.  You've offered 4e which included a few.You've presented this theory a few times.  I'm not saying this had nothing to do with it.  But I think you over state it's importance.  People really are willing to play an out of date game.  I've come to learn this by observing so many 3.5e players nowadays who have Pathfinder to go to but haven't.  Same for the tons of people playing 2e.  So would 4e have done a smidgen better if Pathfinder didn't exist, surely.  But would 4e have been this raging success?  No.</blockquote>

Verification