Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SlyDoubt" data-source="post: 5793424" data-attributes="member: 6667337">I don't really know what you expect people to say. &quot;Yes you're absolutely right, what a fool I am!&quot; 3.X doesn't work for you. For a lot of people, it works just fine. Not everyone who it works for specifically likes super wizards/clerics. Classes will never be balanced. I would rather have a system of unique classes with unique abilities than one where everything is tuned so (considering combat only) everyone can participate equally. No thanks. The game is so wide open that to limit it like that just seems like a bad idea.I really hope they don't feel locked into that idea. That's the bigger concern. Worrying about class 'balance' seems like a recipe for a bland game. I would rather see unbalanced but exciting and interesting classes. Because ultimately D&amp;D is not a computer game. A human is running it and a human can alter and make judgement to even things out where needed. I'd rather the framework push into new and fun ideas than be confined to &quot;well this class has 'a' so we need to give an 'a' equivalent to everyone&quot;.I don't think lessons learned in 4E should be forgotten or thrown out; definitely not. But look where 4E ended up. Hopefully they have been looking hard and long at what worked and what was simply a result of this balance dogma everyone seems so obsessed with. Because sacrifices are made for balance. With a game like D&amp;D which is neither competitive nor run by a cpu, I don't see the absolute need for this. I want an edition where everyone has stuff only they can do that is unique in style and application. The wizard is a problem because by his nature he is supposed to have access to all sorts of magic that can do nearly anything. That's what makes him wizardly. I'd like to see the wizard able to do ridiculous stuff and still able to do things like a fighter or rogue can do (like knock) but not as well. I think there is definitely a very achievable middle ground and I hope wotc explores that thoroughly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SlyDoubt, post: 5793424, member: 6667337"] I don't really know what you expect people to say. "Yes you're absolutely right, what a fool I am!" 3.X doesn't work for you. For a lot of people, it works just fine. Not everyone who it works for specifically likes super wizards/clerics. Classes will never be balanced. I would rather have a system of unique classes with unique abilities than one where everything is tuned so (considering combat only) everyone can participate equally. No thanks. The game is so wide open that to limit it like that just seems like a bad idea. I really hope they don't feel locked into that idea. That's the bigger concern. Worrying about class 'balance' seems like a recipe for a bland game. I would rather see unbalanced but exciting and interesting classes. Because ultimately D&D is not a computer game. A human is running it and a human can alter and make judgement to even things out where needed. I'd rather the framework push into new and fun ideas than be confined to "well this class has 'a' so we need to give an 'a' equivalent to everyone". I don't think lessons learned in 4E should be forgotten or thrown out; definitely not. But look where 4E ended up. Hopefully they have been looking hard and long at what worked and what was simply a result of this balance dogma everyone seems so obsessed with. Because sacrifices are made for balance. With a game like D&D which is neither competitive nor run by a cpu, I don't see the absolute need for this. I want an edition where everyone has stuff only they can do that is unique in style and application. The wizard is a problem because by his nature he is supposed to have access to all sorts of magic that can do nearly anything. That's what makes him wizardly. I'd like to see the wizard able to do ridiculous stuff and still able to do things like a fighter or rogue can do (like knock) but not as well. I think there is definitely a very achievable middle ground and I hope wotc explores that thoroughly. [/QUOTE]

Verification