Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zaruthustran" data-source="post: 1121050" data-attributes="member: 1457">I guess a planet with a different definition of the word &quot;broken.&quot; On this planet, broken means &quot;doesn't work.&quot; Or even &quot;doesn't work as intended.&quot;I disagree with your assessment of the Fighter class. I don't think it's weak. That's fine; we're smart guys who know the rules and we can disagree about balance issues.But even if you're right and the Fighter is underpowered, that doesn't mean it's broken. Broken doesn't mean the same thing as unbalanced.The Fighter works as written. The Fighter works as intended. The Fighter is not broken.So what would I consider &quot;broken&quot;, in a game context? The shapechange/polymorph-and-Awaken trick. The &quot;lance is a medium weapon&quot; (and thus can be used one-handed, even while on foot) rule that was in 3E. The &quot;any target hit with a bola is tripped&quot; (automatically--even if it is, say, a Titan or a water elemental in a lake) rule from Sword and Fist. Those rules and combos are broken. They *don't work* in the context of the game, or break the game's intended features.The value for &quot;skill points&quot; is just a value--there's nothing to break. Well, I suppose it would be broken if Fighters get -1 sp/level. Or 0. Or pi. But, no, the value for skill points is 2. Perfectly good number. It works. If doesn't break the formula for determining starting skill points, or new skill points per level. You may have the opinion that that value is low, but the value itself--and thus the Fighter, in regards to this argument--IS NOT BROKEN.Rules can be broken. Class features can be broken. Spells can be broken. It's very hard for a class (a collection of rules and class features) to be broken. Unbalanced, sure. But not broken.-zPS: the Fighter is not broken.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zaruthustran, post: 1121050, member: 1457"] I guess a planet with a different definition of the word "broken." On this planet, broken means "doesn't work." Or even "doesn't work as intended." I disagree with your assessment of the Fighter class. I don't think it's weak. That's fine; we're smart guys who know the rules and we can disagree about balance issues. But even if you're right and the Fighter is underpowered, that doesn't mean it's broken. Broken doesn't mean the same thing as unbalanced. The Fighter works as written. The Fighter works as intended. The Fighter is not broken. So what would I consider "broken", in a game context? The shapechange/polymorph-and-Awaken trick. The "lance is a medium weapon" (and thus can be used one-handed, even while on foot) rule that was in 3E. The "any target hit with a bola is tripped" (automatically--even if it is, say, a Titan or a water elemental in a lake) rule from Sword and Fist. Those rules and combos are broken. They *don't work* in the context of the game, or break the game's intended features. The value for "skill points" is just a value--there's nothing to break. Well, I suppose it would be broken if Fighters get -1 sp/level. Or 0. Or pi. But, no, the value for skill points is 2. Perfectly good number. It works. If doesn't break the formula for determining starting skill points, or new skill points per level. You may have the opinion that that value is low, but the value itself--and thus the Fighter, in regards to this argument--IS NOT BROKEN. Rules can be broken. Class features can be broken. Spells can be broken. It's very hard for a class (a collection of rules and class features) to be broken. Unbalanced, sure. But not broken. -z PS: the Fighter is not broken. [/QUOTE]

Verification