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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4110429" data-attributes="member: 5143">Sure, you could.  But then you are just creating even broader roles for all of the classes.The warlord's powers are significantly different from those examples.  You seem to be suggesting that ALL of the warlord's powers should be given to the fighter, since they are all battlefield tactician type abilities.In which case, what negatives do you give the fighter in order to balance his new suite of rather powerful battlefield control and tactic abilities?  After all, he is currently the heavily armored one with lots of hitpoints and the ability to do significant damage in melee.Plus, there's the issue of how to do play a fighter with all the fighter abilities AND all the warlord abilities?  I mean you EITHER play him in a leader type role, giving out bonuses and maneuvering your allies into good position OR you play him as a defender, attacking enemies in melee and preventing them from getting to the wizard in the back.If there are two entirely different gameplay ways of using a class, shouldn't it be 2 classes instead?  One for one role and one for the other.  The main reason that wizards and clerics are overpowered in 3.5e is BECAUSE their class fits into too many roles at once.Not if it's fun to play.  I don't care if the reason for putting it into the game was the new endorsement deal WOTC signed with Warlords Shoe Company Inc. as long as when I sit down to play the game the group is able to defeat the monsters that they encounter and it is an enjoyable experience fighting them.  Which it is.You can pay attention to both at the same time.  However, you will always reach a point where one has to be sacrificed in favor of the other.  Sacrificing neither creates a bland, in between game.For instance, wouldn't it be cool to have a class that was a true illusionist?  You could put up illusionary walls and people wouldn't walk through them.  You convince the enemies that their allies are their enemies and cause them to attack them.  You create illusionary monsters that attack and do damage to people.However, under the "does it fit" method of game design you have a bunch of problems with this.  Illusions aren't real so they can't actually DO damage.  Anyone who touched an illusionary wall would go right through it and realize it was an illusion immediately, so it wouldn't hinder anyone.  No enemy is going to suddenly believe their ally who was standing next to them suddenly turned into an enemy.  All these things just don't "fit".It does sound, to me at least, to be a cool class to play.  Without a way to do damage like everyone else in the group, though, it would be way too weak and lose all the fun it had.So, in this case, you either bow to "does it fit" and never design the class at all or you try to mix the two concepts and you end up with an illusion using class that still can't deal damage and whose powers are defeated simply by touching them or you bow to the "gameplay" method of game design and simply say "Illusions can do damage and can't be defeated by touch."The last option creates the most fun class to play, since the results are exactly what you wanted.  However, it does raise a bunch of "WHY does it work that way?" questions.  There are still answers, so it's not like "does it make sense" is forgotten entirely.  Perhaps the mind convinces itself that it's real so it is.  Perhaps illusions are partially a charm effect as well that causes the subjects not to want to touch it and doing psionic damage to someone when they get hit.  Perhaps illusions are summoned from the Feywild where the matter there can be shaped into semi-real constructs.It's just that the balance has been tipped in the favor of gameplay over "does it fit".</blockquote>

Verification