Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6597961" data-attributes="member: 7635">And thus you make the logical fallacy of different mechanics equals imbalance, which fails utterly. Yes, there are classes stronger and weaker than others (druid is clearly strong in 3e, monk is very weak) but overall game balance is much better than those who adhere to the Tier system give credit for. As to 5e, clearly you skipped over Battle Master, which has a very strong resource management system and yet is completely martial. In fact, the Fighter is the best example of the three types: Simple (Champion; few moving parts), Medium (Battlemaster, more moving parts), Complex (Eldritch Knight, many moving parts). This is a far cry better than 4e; where playing a simple/medium fighter required me to buy Heroes of the Fallen Lands 3 years after 4e came out (and already in the twilight of 4e, when WotC was trying to shove smoke back in the bottle around ADEU). From a resource management position (which was what I my post addresses) they are. It seems that all they could do to &quot;balance&quot; the classes was give them all the same amount of encounter, daily, and at-wills. They basically threw up their hands and said &quot;we can balance casters and noncasters, so lets give them both powers and be done.&quot; So if classes with different mechanics are inherently imbalanced, and 4e classes are balanced, does that mean all 4e classes are therefore the same? Thanks for proving my point. Well, we reached the same conclusion: D&amp;D's name hurt 4e more than, say, calling it 13th Age would have. We can (and are) debating the &quot;better&quot; but I think we ultimately agree that 4e was D&amp;DINO and would have done much better (in terms of longevity, not necessarily short-term sales) as its own unique brand.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 6597961, member: 7635"] And thus you make the logical fallacy of different mechanics equals imbalance, which fails utterly. Yes, there are classes stronger and weaker than others (druid is clearly strong in 3e, monk is very weak) but overall game balance is much better than those who adhere to the Tier system give credit for. As to 5e, clearly you skipped over Battle Master, which has a very strong resource management system and yet is completely martial. In fact, the Fighter is the best example of the three types: Simple (Champion; few moving parts), Medium (Battlemaster, more moving parts), Complex (Eldritch Knight, many moving parts). This is a far cry better than 4e; where playing a simple/medium fighter required me to buy Heroes of the Fallen Lands 3 years after 4e came out (and already in the twilight of 4e, when WotC was trying to shove smoke back in the bottle around ADEU). From a resource management position (which was what I my post addresses) they are. It seems that all they could do to "balance" the classes was give them all the same amount of encounter, daily, and at-wills. They basically threw up their hands and said "we can balance casters and noncasters, so lets give them both powers and be done." So if classes with different mechanics are inherently imbalanced, and 4e classes are balanced, does that mean all 4e classes are therefore the same? Thanks for proving my point. Well, we reached the same conclusion: D&D's name hurt 4e more than, say, calling it 13th Age would have. We can (and are) debating the "better" but I think we ultimately agree that 4e was D&DINO and would have done much better (in terms of longevity, not necessarily short-term sales) as its own unique brand. [/QUOTE]

Verification