Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5947703" data-attributes="member: 22779">There's a catch there though.&nbsp; In your examples, all the players knew the ground rules going in.&nbsp; They knew this game was going to be imbalanced and decided that it would be a fun thing to do.D&amp;D doesn't do that though.&nbsp; They never state, &quot;Hey, the casters are going to dominate this game, anyone who doesn't play a caster is going to be, after a certain level (depending on edition) playing second or even third fiddle to the casters&quot;.&nbsp; The classes are supposed to be balanced but aren't.It's never a case that imbalance can't be fun.&nbsp; That's obviously not true.&nbsp; There are all sorts of asymmetrical games out there that are lots of fun.&nbsp; But, the point of those games, like something like Ars Magica, is that the imbalance is stated up front.&nbsp; The wizards in Ars Magica are more powerful.&nbsp; OF COURSE.&nbsp; That's the point.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Casters, in D&amp;D though, aren't supposed to be more powerful than other classes.&nbsp; They're supposed to be on par.&nbsp; Not the same, obviously, but, at least playing in the same ballpark.&nbsp; The 1e thief was so far behind the curve that it was laughable.&nbsp; The 3e bard, at least in core, is a bad class.&nbsp; So is the monk.&nbsp; There should never be tiers of classes in D&amp;D.&nbsp; Or, if there are tiers, those tiers should be made very explicit up front.&nbsp; Heck, paladins used to come with an absolute boatload of restrictions because they were so &quot;powerful&quot; yet, it was the casters at higher levels that had to be nerfed or they would chew up modules like so much tissue paper.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5947703, member: 22779"] There's a catch there though. In your examples, all the players knew the ground rules going in. They knew this game was going to be imbalanced and decided that it would be a fun thing to do. D&D doesn't do that though. They never state, "Hey, the casters are going to dominate this game, anyone who doesn't play a caster is going to be, after a certain level (depending on edition) playing second or even third fiddle to the casters". The classes are [i]supposed[/i] to be balanced but aren't. It's never a case that imbalance can't be fun. That's obviously not true. There are all sorts of asymmetrical games out there that are lots of fun. But, the point of those games, like something like Ars Magica, is that the imbalance is stated up front. The wizards in Ars Magica are more powerful. OF COURSE. That's the point. :D Casters, in D&D though, aren't supposed to be more powerful than other classes. They're supposed to be on par. Not the same, obviously, but, at least playing in the same ballpark. The 1e thief was so far behind the curve that it was laughable. The 3e bard, at least in core, is a bad class. So is the monk. There should never be tiers of classes in D&D. Or, if there are tiers, those tiers should be made very explicit up front. Heck, paladins used to come with an absolute boatload of restrictions because they were so "powerful" yet, it was the casters at higher levels that had to be nerfed or they would chew up modules like so much tissue paper. [/QUOTE]

Verification