Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5522517" data-attributes="member: 82106">There's nothing anti-anything about some reasonable amount of balance between classes. Furthermore the fact that a wizard is puny (a claim I will address below) at level 1 and far outstrips the non-casters at anything past around 9th level simply means there is NO balance at any point except some very narrow range (usually acknowledged to be between around 3rd and 9th levels). The truth is though that you're missing a very key aspect of the imbalance. It wasn't so much the imbalance in combat power which was the real issue, but the imbalance in PLOT power. The casters have reasonable responses to every eventuality in the plot. These come to them without any extra investment (possibly locating some spells, which is generally pretty trivial). The fighter OTOH at best will have to redirect a substantial amount of his skill points and feats from the effort to just remain combat-relevant to gain even scraps of plot power, which will still be hopelessly outshadowed by the ease with which the casters wield charms, detections, teleports, etc, easily being able to provide a response to most plot demands. This is the main thing that 4e has mitigated. A fighter, using existing class resources, can achieve plot relevance similar to that of the wizard. He can access real useful game changing capabilities. He's on something close to a level playing field. Even then the wizard in particular is still blessed with more skills, built-in ritual casting, and a power selection which is still pretty flexible. Meanwhile, RP is not really system-dependent and 4e provides plenty of scope for that. Nor is either game even remotely close to simulating anything accurately, so it is pointless to say that 4e is totally unrealistic when 3.5 was already totally unrealistic. Whatever their relative positions on that scale is, they are both vanishingly close to the same on that score.</blockquote>

Verification