Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deadboy" data-source="post: 5784598" data-attributes="member: 61779">I think this is the crux of the problem in this thread, and it cuts both ways. Whether a table has had problems with the class balance seems to largely come down to playstyle. One table may have players use the Wizard's abilities to their logical conclusion and thus reduced the fun of others, while another play Wizards along a power curve that feels more fair to other players. It all comes down to playstyle.But there's several problems with that - at what percentage of tables experiencing problems and holding these opinions does it become an issue that needs to be addressed? Five percent? 25 percent? 50 percent? Even if its only five percent, isn't the fact that those players - maybe hundreds of them - are having an issue bad for the game? And isn't it also a problem that should players of the different playstyles cross, players of one playstyle may ruin the fun for players of others? Does it occur to you that maybe my playstyle may have been closer to your playstyle, if not for bad experiences I've had with players who have just used the Wizard to the fullest of its capabilities?Is it really a good thing for D&D to only cater to the playstyles that don't utilize options to their fullest extent, even if those are the playstyles that are intended by the designers? Every player can't know how rules were intended, so if they see an advantage that's in the rules, the core rules no less, and use it, that should be a perfectly valid way to play the game.From my perspective, its incumbent for the rules to encourage players to play the way designers intended it to be played, and not just throw whatever out there and hope that that players respect the intent.Last, I do think it's hard fact that the Wizard is broken - in certain playstyles. I also think it's hard fact that the Wizard isn't broken - in different playstyles. It's my belief that a game should be designed to make sure the class is broken in as few playstyles as possible, or even preferably none at all. 4e succeeded at that, even if the way they succeeded wasn't to everyone's taste. Heck, I'm a 4e supporter but I won't try to hide its flaws - it DID go too far and sacrifice too much on the alter of balance. Giving everyone exactly the same AEDU progressions made the game insanely easy to balance but has created an impression (a mistaken one, in my opinion, but also not entirely invalid) that all the classes are the same. I also think it was a mistake to have not included more non-combat powers in the earliest versions of the game, creating the (also mistaken) impression that the game was all about combat.</blockquote>

Verification