Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7249271" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Not going to debate it but just wanted to note that what you view as unfair I view as correcting the unfairness that's already present.  What you are viewing as detrimental to balance I see as fixing the lack of balance.  The point is that we obviously start out with different beliefs about the game and fighters in general and that influences what we see as balanced and what we do not see as balanced.So if my belief is that fighters are unbalanced already then obviously that is fixed by giving them something extra that they don't already get.  If I just give that something extra to every other class then I've just made everything better in which case while he became objectively better than the previous fighter he gained no actual ground in relation to the other classes I was trying to balance him against.I guess the point I am making is that what I'm suggesting isn't bad design of itself.  It only becomes bad design when the belief that fighters are already balanced is held.  Maybe it would be appropriate to ask this question.  Suppose you had a class that was comparable to a rogue at exploration but did terrible damage and had no social benefits.  What do you do to balance that class?  Do you give combat feats that anyone can take?  Do you make kits that everyone can take?  Or do you make something that only benefits that class?</blockquote>