Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sylrae" data-source="post: 4378781" data-attributes="member: 48520">Clearly 3.5e has alot of things that aren't right.&nbsp;4,0 is more balanced, but its so limited in scope that it makes me feel like I'm playing a board game.&nbsp;Pathfinder looks like it will be an improvement over both, though I imagine it too will be far from perfect.While I agree that there are these issues, I don't see the point in discussing the intricacies of class imbalance without intending to redesign the class/fix it.ENWorld is filled with developers, I dev stuff myself, even though it isnt published, and I imagine many others on this site also dev stuff without publishing.So. People say caster v non-caster the caster is better. while I agree with you at 20, it's the inverse at 1 (for all but the cleric and druid - hence the point of this thread initially). The fighters are linear based, the casters are quadratic. If you want total balance at every level, then you need to use the same system for both. I would argue that the fighter and wizard are balanced in one sense, because they switch which is better in the middle. the wizard is terrible at low levels but kicks ass at high levels. the fighter is good at low levels and mediocre at high levels.Where we have all these inconsistencies, the only real solution is to remake the classes to be better. I'm doing it a bit, and Kerrick is doing it too. If we want balanced classe we aren't going to have them magically appear without them being made.&nbsp;Not all of us like 4e, even though it is more balanced. But at the same time, alot of people don't like the imbalance of 3.xe. Therefore the only solution is to take the linux approach and if you don't like how the pros did it, do a better job yourself.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sylrae, post: 4378781, member: 48520"] Clearly 3.5e has alot of things that aren't right. 4,0 is more balanced, but its so limited in scope that it makes me feel like I'm playing a board game. Pathfinder looks like it will be an improvement over both, though I imagine it too will be far from perfect. While I agree that there are these issues, I don't see the point in discussing the intricacies of class imbalance without intending to redesign the class/fix it.ENWorld is filled with developers, I dev stuff myself, even though it isnt published, and I imagine many others on this site also dev stuff without publishing. So. People say caster v non-caster the caster is better. while I agree with you at 20, it's the inverse at 1 (for all but the cleric and druid - hence the point of this thread initially). The fighters are linear based, the casters are quadratic. If you want total balance at every level, then you need to use the same system for both. I would argue that the fighter and wizard are balanced in one sense, because they switch which is better in the middle. the wizard is terrible at low levels but kicks ass at high levels. the fighter is good at low levels and mediocre at high levels. Where we have all these inconsistencies, the only real solution is to remake the classes to be better. I'm doing it a bit, and Kerrick is doing it too. If we want balanced classe we aren't going to have them magically appear without them being made. Not all of us like 4e, even though it is more balanced. But at the same time, alot of people don't like the imbalance of 3.xe. Therefore the only solution is to take the linux approach and if you don't like how the pros did it, do a better job yourself. [/QUOTE]

Verification