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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5832525" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, that's where the rub lies.  If you try to balance characters by saying that Class A is good in Situation A and Class B is good in Situation B, you are balancing apples with oranges.  For one, how often do situations A and B come up?  How often can they be reasonably expected to come up in most campaigns (since we can't really design for corner cases)?  How long does it take to resolve A and B?  How much do situations A and B appeal to the group as a whole rather than to the individual character (the classic Shadowrun Decker issue)?  So on and so forth.It's much better to balance within, to use the 4e term, silo's.  So, two classes are balanced within combat - not that they do the same damage or whatnot, but that both classes are capable of having signficant impact on combat.  Two classes should be balanced outside of combat as well - again, not that they have exactly the same skill set, but, that they have roughly the same options and can choose to specialize as the player sees fit.Something 4e got wrong was different numbers of trained skills for different classes.  Why does a fighter have less trained skills than a wizard?  AFAIC, there's no real reason.  I totally get the idea of different trained skills, that makes sense.  But, why should wizards have more overall?Hopefully 5e with it's "three pillars" approach will nix this sort of thing entirely.Ahh, gotcha.  You can achieve that a few ways, but, mostly IMO, you have to eject a lot of the preconceived notions of what a given class is.  If you want to have a fighter that can do things other than fight, you have to make the option possible.  Not necessarily easy, and, I have no problem with the fighter maybe not being better than another class at doing something, but, he should be able to be as good as another class.</blockquote>

Verification