Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6361748" data-attributes="member: 15700">This is a strawman.&nbsp; I don't think I ever implied that &quot;fighter as powerful as wizard&quot; = &quot;fighter is actually wizard.&quot;&nbsp; The closest I came was the reference to the serial numbers thing. For example, if a wizard can cast a spell that bypasses AC to deal direct damage and a fighter has a maneuver that bypass AC to deal direct damage, the only real difference is the name of the spell/maneuver and fluff.&nbsp; To me that's boring because there's no difference between the two other than fluff.&nbsp; And to go back to my niche protection comment, I don't like a game where every character type is just as effective as every other one in combat, at skill challenges, etc.&nbsp; Again, to me that feels like the same car with just a different name and paint job.&nbsp; I like characters to have that diversity, where they are better than any other class at a specialty, but might not be as good as others in another field.&nbsp; And I'm positive I'm not the only one who feels this way.Additionally, you're doing the exact thing I was cautioning at earlier.&nbsp; I.e. it seems you're looking at classes through a lens of how powerful they are as if &quot;power&quot; is some universally agreed upon metric, and possibly only considering white room scenarios.&nbsp; What is &quot;powerful&quot;?&nbsp; DPR measurement?&nbsp; Instant win abilities?&nbsp; Does it factor in things like environment?&nbsp; You might consider a spell like fireball to be really powerful, but if it can only be cast a very limited amount of times, it's really not in the context of the entire game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 6361748, member: 15700"] This is a strawman. I don't think I ever implied that "fighter as powerful as wizard" = "fighter is actually wizard." The closest I came was the reference to the serial numbers thing. For example, if a wizard can cast a spell that bypasses AC to deal direct damage and a fighter has a maneuver that bypass AC to deal direct damage, the only real difference is the name of the spell/maneuver and fluff. To me that's boring because there's no difference between the two other than fluff. And to go back to my niche protection comment, I don't like a game where every character type is just as effective as every other one in combat, at skill challenges, etc. Again, to me that feels like the same car with just a different name and paint job. I like characters to have that diversity, where they are better than any other class at a specialty, but might not be as good as others in another field. And I'm positive I'm not the only one who feels this way. Additionally, you're doing the exact thing I was cautioning at earlier. I.e. it seems you're looking at classes through a lens of how powerful they are as if "power" is some universally agreed upon metric, and possibly only considering white room scenarios. What is "powerful"? DPR measurement? Instant win abilities? Does it factor in things like environment? You might consider a spell like fireball to be really powerful, but if it can only be cast a very limited amount of times, it's really not in the context of the entire game. [/QUOTE]

Verification