Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Votan" data-source="post: 3285203" data-attributes="member: 18680">It is my understanding that the playtesting was based on iconic characters.  These iconic characters are specific class and race combinations.  I am thinking that maybe part of the balance issues are that the combination is balanced but the individual elements are not.  The iconics are:Kursk, Half-Orc BarbarianGimble, Gnome BardJozan, Human ClericVadania, Half-Elf DruidTordek, Dwarf FighterEmber, Human MonkAlhandra, Human PaladinSoveliss, Elf RangerLidda, Halfling RogueHennet, Human SorcererMialee, Elf WizardSome interesting patterns emerge.  The strongest race (Dwarf) is paired with a class often thought to be the weakest (Fighter).  On the other hand, the weakest race (Half-Elf) is paired with what is often considered to be the strongest class (Druid).  Humans are the race with the broadest range of classes: Cleric, Monk, Paladin and Sorcerer.  Notice that the cleric is a cleric of Pelor as that is almost the worst choice from a power-gaming perspective.  Half-Orc is often thought to be a weak race but the 4 skill points per level of the Barbarian probably compensate for the -2 INT of the Half Orc when compared to the Fighter.  What do people think?  Could this explain some of the paradoxes in D&D 3.5 in terms of class and race balance?</blockquote>