| Tebbo |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Argh. I will never understand peoples' obsession with 'balance'.
I've had extremely powerful and very weak characters in the same party without so much as a peep of complaining. Why? Because they're playing what they want to play and they're all on the same team. The DM is on their team too so I don't really understand this.
As for power creep in general and the idea that they're trying too hard to keep things in line, I don't agree. The Pathfinder team has found two excellent methods of limiting possible combinations and still allowing interesting choices. Archetypes and alternate classes. I am thrilled to see very few prestige classes in the game. Prestige classes should be saved for things like organizations the players can join or transformations of some sort. Otherwise everything can be covered with base classes using archetypes and alternate classes.
If it isn't organized play with people you don't personally know I don't see how any of this detracts from the game at all. It's just the same old argument phrased differently.
Some options aren't mechanically as strong as others. So what? Would you rather an attempt at flat balance and progression *cough* 4E *cough*.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea of a 'trap' option. So it's a trap if not every option is equally useful in every situation? Get out of here. That's just a ridiculous perspective. 'traps' aren't intentional, they're there for the people who will like them (not anyone who calls them 'traps' obviously).
That's basically spitting on someone's decision because it's not optimized in your mind.