Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dellamon" data-source="post: 5782534" data-attributes="member: 6675987">You are reading a lot into that statement.  I never said anything about ending class balance or that there was never class balance.  I was wondering what the issues were with the classes balanced as is.  Some classes are going to be more powerful than others in certain situations.  I am approaching this from a 1E /2E perspective in which all of those factors were there and provided balance from the beginning.  3E and 4E was where they were left behind.  I do not agree that XP is meaningless. While a unit of XP may be the same amount of experience, this experience amount will impact advancement differently for different classes.  If class X advances at a 25% greater rate than class Y, since class Y in inherently more powerful and difficult to master, then there is definitely balance.  Why limit a class advancement framework for the sake of keeping levels even?  For example, if I choose to play a magic-user or cleric I am fully aware that when I am 8th level the fighter and thief, who started their characters at the same time, may be 10th level (provided a 25% delta).  Its a limitation that balances the game while still allowing for differentiation.  Hit points and saves for a few levels can make a big difference.I guess the point I am trying to make is - classes are different and should be able to advance at different rates!  If you think of them as professions, maybe that will make it a little easier to understand.  Take for example an auto mechanic versus a rocket scientist.  If both of these people spend a year working in their prospective field, who will be more accomplished in that field?  I would dare say the auto mechanic, since the field is more narrow in terms of knowledge requirements.  Both professions are needed and good, and both excel under different situations, but the auto mechanic will learn their profession at a faster rate due to the nature of the work.  Does that make the rocket scientist intrinsically better?  No, it just means they are in a more demanding profession that takes a lot longer to master - and there are a hell of lot less rocket scientists than auto mechanics. I think this is a concept really brought about with MMOs and 4E.  The idea that your character should progress throughout the campaign with little fear of needing to re-roll, an expectation even.  In the 4E games I have played in, I almost had to go out of my way to put my character in danger of dying (granted, this could have been a DM issue).  That was one of the elements of excitement with earlier editions - you never knew if you were going to be able to survive the next battle.  Someone who made it to 8th or 9th level had really accomplished something.  It was hard to do that, unless you started at a higher level to begin with.  I agree with you here.  If you can balance the classes while differentiating the powers and making each class unique that would be great.  I am just very doubtful that this is possible since one player will always feel left out since their character cannot cast a mega-death-bomb-of-doom even though they just used their really-awesome-cleave-of-deathly-might to take out a quarter of the enemies.</blockquote>

Verification