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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6279620" data-attributes="member: 92511">Also, a good point. I can't think, even in the 1e UA days, of anyone I played with being all "OO! I'm gonna play a cavalier!" But is that just because the paladin already had cornered the market, so to speak? Or cuz magicky fighter guys were kooler than non-magiky fighter guys? Is there just a, kinda, inbred bias from the years of D&D (and such like) games that didn't offer a cavalier/knightly type beyond the "take a fighter and give him/add this..."Fair enough.That does seem a natural conclusion. One is magic the other isn't. Well, I am not one to be overly concerned with "balance", per se. I want thing reasonably "fair" and have no problem with a bit of "symmetry" (each class gets something from column A and something from column B...all Warrior classes get XYZ while Wizard classes get ABC..." that kinda thing.)Does the Fighter need to match a Cavalier inch-by-inch/every step of the way? imho No, I would say not. Part of my attitude toward "specialized/specific archetypes" of the broader classes is that, sure, they get maybe a few "extras" that the general Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Mage doesn't get...but those broader classes expand and gain more abilities more, overall, that the specific guy, by virtue of his specificity, doesn't get access to.  So...well, I guess to answer your question, that's how I "balance" things. Look at the class over the course of the game (or, say, 10 levels at a shot)...not just "everyone PC who is 5th level has to have all of the same/equally effective stuff." I just don't like that...and correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what a lot of people mean/are looking for when they use the B-word.Not a popular view nowadays, I know. But works for me.(be getting to the the rest of responses in a few. I have some errands to run.)HAPPY FRIDAY ALL!!!</blockquote>

Verification