Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7246191" data-attributes="member: 996">Not at all, it'd take a huge expansion in versatility before the rogue, let alone the fighter, started eating into other classes' smaller shares of the player base.&nbsp; If you really want to play a wizard (or whatever) the way most people really want to play a fighter, you'd play a hypothetical wizard that's as far behind the curve in theory as the fighter is in practice.&nbsp; In fact, people did that back in the day, for the first couple levels...&nbsp; ...most players don't choose characters on the basis of mechanics, but on concept.&nbsp; Even all powergamers don't always take the most powerful class, optimizing to /concept/ instead of for maximum effectiveness.&nbsp; &quot;How many people play class X&quot; is only a measure of class effectiveness if you limit your sample to inveterate, cynical optimizers.&nbsp; But, how effective a class tends to be does impact the play experience for everyone - cynical or not, optimizer or not.&nbsp; It's up to the DM to compensate for that, one way or another.&nbsp; Identifying and 'nerfing' (or even just raising community awareness of) potential problems is one way to do so.&nbsp; Thus threads like this.&nbsp; What, things don't ever go off plan?&nbsp; IDK, AC is traditionally supposed to be a wizardly weakness, no?&nbsp;Versatility?&nbsp; The BM's shtick may include combat-pillar versatility - relative to the Champion - that's about it.&nbsp; &nbsp;Nod.&nbsp; Same basic observation as the above.&nbsp; It's not that the bladesinger doesn't poach fighter goodies, it's that its wizard goodies are still so much better that it shouldn't bother most of the time.&nbsp; :shrug:</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7246191, member: 996"] Not at all, it'd take a huge expansion in versatility before the rogue, let alone the fighter, started eating into other classes' smaller shares of the player base. If you really want to play a wizard (or whatever) the way most people really want to play a fighter, you'd play a hypothetical wizard that's as far behind the curve in theory as the fighter is in practice. In fact, people did that back in the day, for the first couple levels... ...most players don't choose characters on the basis of mechanics, but on concept. Even all powergamers don't always take the most powerful class, optimizing to /concept/ instead of for maximum effectiveness. "How many people play class X" is only a measure of class effectiveness if you limit your sample to inveterate, cynical optimizers. But, how effective a class tends to be does impact the play experience for everyone - cynical or not, optimizer or not. I t's up to the DM to compensate for that, one way or another. Identifying and 'nerfing' (or even just raising community awareness of) potential problems is one way to do so. Thus threads like this. What, things don't ever go off plan? IDK, AC is traditionally supposed to be a wizardly weakness, no? Versatility? The BM's shtick may include combat-pillar versatility - relative to the Champion - that's about it. Nod. Same basic observation as the above. It's not that the bladesinger doesn't poach fighter goodies, it's that its wizard goodies are still so much better that it shouldn't bother most of the time. :shrug: [/QUOTE]

Verification