Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr Simon" data-source="post: 2988210" data-attributes="member: 21938">I think the ideal that is aimed at with the concept of 'balance' is that no one character should out-shine another in terms of abilities and game time.Although D&D3 was designed with this concept in mind perhaps more explicitly than earlier editions, it's still a two-way street between rules and DM.The core concept of a D&D adventuring party is that each member has something unique to contribute.  New classes, feat, options etc. that render the abilities of a class redundant upset that balance.  It's not so much a question of whether a 5th level Rogue can handle himself in a fight as well as a 5th level Fighter, or even if he is as powerful - it's more a question of do his unique qualities as a rogue (sneak attack bonus, trapfinding, skills monkey) make him *as useful* (or interesting to play) as a fighter?The rules and fundamental design play a part in this, but adventure design/DM are the second half, if you will.  If the adventure is a tomb full of undead (no sneak attack), little or no traps, high places, locked doors or peopple to bluff, then the rogue is going to find himself out-classed and out game-timed by the cleric (who can turn) and the fighter (who can Great Cleave his way through those zombies).</blockquote>