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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5832992" data-attributes="member: 58197">I prefer the 4E approach. Fighter and wizard should remain balanced at each part of the level range. However, I would omit the word "perfectly"--see below.I think you're confusing "dislike for fully balanced classes" with "dislike for 4E's method of achieving fully balanced classes." 4E was so zealous in its pursuit of class balance that it stripped away a lot of what made the classes unique. That's why I think "perfectly balanced" is a bad way to think of it. It's okay if the fighter is a bit stronger than the wizard at level 6 and the wizard is a bit stronger than the fighter at level 7, as long as the differences are not large and you don't have to wait more than a level or two for them to be rectified.In addition, it's okay to have one class be a little better at combat while another is a little better at exploration or roleplaying, so long as the differences are not too large.Not really. Sorcerors still pwn noncasters at mid- to high levels. You don't need access to every spell in the book to dominate; just the crazy-broken ones. And don't underestimate the value of a sorceror's ability to cast the same spell over and over until the enemy rolls over and dies. Wizards look stronger on paper, but in actual play, the Vancian preparation requirement is a significant concern until quite high levels--you can't always bamf out and come back the next day. I don't think sorcs fall behind wizards in power until you reach the level where Quicken Spell becomes a factor.</blockquote>

Verification