Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5517586" data-attributes="member: 82106">I don't think pre-4e D&D ever ATTEMPTED to achieve class parity. WAY back in the old days when asked about this Gygax made some noise about the balance being that magic users were weak at low levels, but frankly I think that was 100% after-the-fact rationalization and nobody ever really believed it meant diddly. Yes, it may be somewhat harder to achieve balance when the mechanics are SOMEWHAT different. Still, the difference between a Mage and a Slayer is vastly less than the difference between a Fighting Man and a Magic User (of any edition). The Mage's powers are designed to be far less plot busting, lack "I Win" buttons, and mostly operate on a plane similar to martial powers, doing similar levels of damage, etc. Utility powers also provide a rather significant safety valve because your Slayer CAN employ powers and has some pretty useful ones (especially if you mine earlier material). The observed result from ALL reports I've seen of extended Essentials/4e mixed play is that parity is pretty good. Certainly within the parameters of what 4e already had (where frankly the martial classes outshine the others in a lot of respects).So, my analysis would be that arguments about balance in previous versions are moot, they have nothing to teach us about that because absolutely no attempt was ever made to achieve it and it was simply not a concern. Possibly Bo9S WAS an experiment in that direction and simply serves to indicate how far from any such consideration 3.5 was. Essentials martial classes are pretty well balanced and serve as the proof that, while it may be slightly harder, you can still achieve balanced play even without all classes being AEDU.</blockquote>

Verification