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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6203501" data-attributes="member: 42582">I am not 100% clear on what version of 3E you are playing.A point that   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] made upthread was that there seems to be at least a degree of tension in asserting both that core 3E (or, say, core 3.5) is balanced, and that the changes in PF which somewhat weakened at least some spells, and somewhat powered up fighters, are significant improvements to the balance of the game. The same thing appies to Trailblazer, which clearly in its rules text asserts that 3.5 as published had a balance problem:Fighters don’t keep up with other classes as level increases. [TB, p 2]If you have made changes to the mechanics of the game you run, including adopting TB changes expressly designed to correct for the fact that in core 3.5 "fighters don't keep up with other classes as level increases", then why are you so critical of those who say that they have had trouble with caster/fighter balance in 3.5? Or in PF, for that matter - maybe whatever they were experiencing was a more extreme version of whatever TB improved for you, and so even PF or TB doesn't improve their game enough?Changing other things too, like default stat array and default WBL also seems like something that might help fighters relative to casters, because fighters are more likely to care about a wider range of stats (STR, CON and DEX at least are all core to what fighters do) and have a performance that is more variable across changes in gear; whereas casters can often get buy just on their casting stat, and carry a lot more of their heft built in, via spell loadout, without the need for gear.If you have made these changes, I'm again not really seeing why you are so harsh on those who are looking for other sorts of changes - say, a PHB3, ToB, ToM game - which might suit them better than the changes you've made.Out of curiosity, how frequently do battles occur in your campaign?Even allowing for the familiarity of the players with their PCs, and the intellectual synergies among a group of players vs a single GM, a party which survives 4 50/50 fights is doing pretty well, given that the likelihood of doing so is well below 10%.To have a 50% chance of surviving 4 battles, the players' likelkihoo of winning each battle (assuming uniform odds across the four) have to be around 84%. If the battles are 50/50 in purely mechanical terms, then those non-mechanical contributions are making a big difference! Small changes in those odds make a big difference, too. Drop the 84% to 79% and there is a 50% chance of surviving 3 fights. Increase it to around 87% or 89% and there is 50% chance of surving 5 or 6 fights respectively.In 4e the system mechanics are deliberately designed to leverage player familiarity and player intellectual synergy, by delivering to players significantly better than even mechanical chances of victory provided that they take advantage of their familiarity with their PCs, which (i) are far more complex in build than NPCs or monster, and (ii) work best in complex mechanical synergy with the other PCs.</blockquote>

Verification