Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 5782216" data-attributes="member: 3424">Wait - you wonder why there seems to be an obsession with class balance and then argue that magic-using classes should be balanced by requiring more XP, lower survivability, and rules such as weapon speed factors and dynamic initiative? This would suggest that you are arguing more about the means of class balance while acknowledging that there is nothing wrong with the end of class balance in itself.Now, with respect to the means of class balancing, different XP tables in themselves are actually quite meaningless. If a magic-using class requires 25% more XP, but each level grants it 25% more power, then you might as well just scale back both the power and the XP required and have a unified XP table. If a fighter with 50,000 xp is supposed to be on par (however that is defined) with a wizard with 50,000 xp, does it matter whether the fighter is 8th level and the wizard is 6th, or both are 7th level?Lower survivability can be a balancing factor in a game that features high character turnover or multiple characters per player, but it does not suit games in which the players are limited to one character each, and the same characters are expected to progress through a campaign. Hence, it is not suitable for all styles of play.Frankly, I don't see how balanced classes could make it harder for the DM to ensure that every character gets a share of the limelight, or make it more difficult for the players to co-operate. So really, neither of the above are reasons to favor more class balance over less.That said, the initial 4e classes have been criticised for having similar power structures and similar powers and abilities, which have caused some players to feel that the character do not play differently enough. However, that to me is an indication that classes and powers should be made more distinct, and not an argument against class balance per se.</blockquote>

Verification