Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6361886" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya.&nbsp; I think the analysis isn't looking at the whole picture. IMHO, one shouldn't &quot;just compare damage/combat output&quot;. If you want to get a good feeling for class balance, you need to look at it from all &quot;pillars&quot; of the game (the ones listed on page 8 of the PHB). Then, you need to take into account consequences of actions. A bard that uses up half his spells in one encounter may outshine the fighter. But what about the next one? The one after that? Or after that? Or when they are heading back to camp? Or when they are camped at night and on watch? Looking at &quot;class X can do Y, therefore Z&quot; in a purely mathematical way is almost pointless. An RPG is not just a series of unrelated 'encounters'. In an RPG, there are thinking beings opposing the PC's. They don't just sit around waiting to be killed. If a goblin lair is assaulted, you can be your left nut that they will be prepared for the next one, taking measures to reduce the losses they just suffered.&nbsp; So, I don't put much stock in these &quot;look at the numbers&quot; type analysis (analysis's? analysese?) as they don't take into account the myraid of other things that are constantly going on in a well run campaign. Most certainly not past about level 8 to 10...after those levels, there is probably so much going on in the PC's lives that attempting you use a sterile, clinical &quot;this is what the book says&quot; comparison is a waste of time. It's the same as the old 3.x/PF argument that casters are always better than non-casters. I (and my group) have never, ever, and I mean ever seen a caster be 'overpowered' in comparison to other PC's in the group. Usefull as all get out? Hellz yeah...but that's kind of the point of magic, isn't it? I'm seeing the same arguments here; theory, but in actual play...doesn't hold up at all.^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 6361886, member: 45197"] Hiya. I think the analysis isn't looking at the whole picture. IMHO, one shouldn't "just compare damage/combat output". If you want to get a good feeling for class balance, you need to look at it from all "pillars" of the game (the ones listed on page 8 of the PHB). Then, you need to take into account [i]consequences of actions[/i]. A bard that uses up half his spells in one encounter may outshine the fighter. But what about the next one? The one after that? Or after that? Or when they are heading back to camp? Or when they are camped at night and on watch? Looking at "class X can do Y, therefore Z" in a purely mathematical way is almost pointless. An RPG is [i]not[/i] just a series of unrelated 'encounters'. In an RPG, there are thinking beings opposing the PC's. They don't just sit around waiting to be killed. If a goblin lair is assaulted, you can be your left nut that they will be prepared for the next one, taking measures to reduce the losses they just suffered. So, I don't put much stock in these "look at the numbers" type analysis (analysis's? analysese?) as they don't take into account the myraid of other things that are constantly going on in a well run campaign. Most certainly not past about level 8 to 10...after those levels, there is probably so much going on in the PC's lives that attempting you use a sterile, clinical "this is what the book says" comparison is a waste of time. It's the same as the old 3.x/PF argument that casters are always better than non-casters. I (and my group) have never, ever, and I mean [i]ever[/i] seen a caster be 'overpowered' in comparison to other PC's in the group. Usefull as all get out? Hellz yeah...but that's kind of the point of magic, isn't it? I'm seeing the same arguments here; theory, but in actual play...doesn't hold up at all. ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification