Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Uskglass" data-source="post: 6361756" data-attributes="member: 6777895">Me neither. But obviously that's not what we are talking about here. Being better in a field is something, being able to ignore restriction and challenge factors in a field is something else.The OP analysis shows how, beyond low level, the spellcaster class progressively outmatches the martial class in pretty much every area. And that's without even trying hard: there is no attempt towards optimisation in the examples used, just sensible choices along progression. So much for the 'balance across pillars' intent (which I also find debatable, but we are not even getting that one here).Now, we can say we don't care about the problem, that 90% of the players are going to play low level only anyway, that this is actually 'fun' or 'classic' or both. Still the issue exists, and it will be bothering for a number of players till some alternatives will be made available to them (if ever).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Uskglass, post: 6361756, member: 6777895"] Me neither. But obviously that's not what we are talking about here. Being better in a field is something, being able to ignore restriction and challenge factors in a field is something else. The OP analysis shows how, beyond low level, the spellcaster class progressively outmatches the martial class in pretty much every area. And that's without even trying hard: there is no attempt towards optimisation in the examples used, just sensible choices along progression. So much for the 'balance across pillars' intent (which I also find debatable, but we are not even getting that one here). Now, we can say we don't care about the problem, that 90% of the players are going to play low level only anyway, that this is actually 'fun' or 'classic' or both. Still the issue exists, and it will be bothering for a number of players till some alternatives will be made available to them (if ever). [/QUOTE]

Verification