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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sunshadow21" data-source="post: 6362859" data-attributes="member: 6667193"><p>The only way you are ever going to get true balance between the fighter and the wizard is to throw out both classes as traditionally understood in D&D terms and start over from scratch. Just be prepared for a massive backlash if people don't like the rewrite, ala 4E. It's interesting, though, that on a thread on the Paizo forums that asks what 8 classes people would keep, only the cleric out of the classic 4 made it into the top 8 after all the different posts were counted, and even that was only #6. Paizo has a lot more wiggle room than WotC does in catering to changing play styles, however, since PF as a brand doesn't have to pay nearly as much attention to the traditions that people have attached to the D&D brand. At this point, for WotC to significantly change the relationship between fighter and wizard would basically require them to reboot the brand. Whether people really like it or not, a versatile wizard and a combat focused fighter are part of the core expectations, and veering too far from that alienates a lot of people; just look at 4E for proof of that. How well 5E ultimately did with this remains to be seen, but so far at least, I'm skeptical. They still seem to be trying way to hard to "fix" something that there is no particular agreement on just what the best solution is or if there's even a problem at all. I'll withhold final judgment until I see the DMG and the alternate rules they come up with, but for now, it seems like they are trying so hard to please everyone, no one is going to really be satisfied. Either way, I'm getting a bit tired of calls to "fix" this problem when the bigger issue is that people simply need to accept that there are different preferences in play styles and no one brand can possibly cover all of them.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification