Really? I thought it was because I am so thorough in my arguments that it is easier to attack my character than my ideas?Psion said:
I understand this attitude, I just vehemently disagree with it. This kind of thinking is responsible for most of the bad ideas in 3.5e AFAIAC (e.g., pokemounts.)
The oringinal 3e designers did not approach class design in this manner, and the core classes still don't reflect this sort of thinking. Else the fighter would be patently overpowered, as other classes like rogues do have noncombat abilities factored into their balance.
Now it is true that combat is a major part, thus the reason you see things like sneak attack to help keep rogues effective and limited spell slots to keep mages from contributing more combat damage than fighters. But, again, you are creating a false dichotomy. Just because combat has enough of an emphasis that most classes are optimized to have an effective role in combat does not mean that combat is (or should be) the only determiner of balance.
Actually, the 3.5 team played the smart card, because they realized how difficult it was to balance classes by out of combat activity. Until I see firm rules on how much times a dm should throw an encounter that requires skill X or utility spell Y, its probably best to judge balance by the effectivness of a class in the situations that have the firmest rules, costs, and rewards, i.e. combat. Because its very easy for a dm to create out-of-combat circumstances where most utility abilities aren't strictly neccessary or where they don't cover a particular situation...Passive...Its very diffcult to assess a reasonable tradeoff between incombat and out-of-combat ability.
Since you are not saying something I agree with here, I don't see how I missed anything. Characters are most certainly balanced without outside of combat issues in mind. Hint: if they weren't, then there would be no CR/ECL dichotomy.
Actually, this was in response to the implication that i got from your post that roll balance had to incorporate out-of-combat situations. I disagree, because combat incorporates the idea.
HINT: you don't seem to understand CR/EL. They are both primarily functions of combat effectivness, the only division is between PC and NPC. Because in a single combat, the difference between an effective spell-like ability 3/day and one at will is due to whether one is creature is in a single encounter or multiple.
Given that most adventures involve several combat encounters and several noncombat challenges, enough will certainly show up in play that it certainly will be telling.
If you are only having one short encounter a day all the time, then it is a wonder that single classes arcane casters aren't dominating your game. Fortunately, that is not the core assumption behind the way classes and adventures are structured.
Oh please. You assumption about my assumptions is unwarrented and disingenuous; I was not implying a single encounter. It would take more than four encounters of the appropriate levels for the low-level spells of the MT or the half-assed melee abilities of the EK to show up. And really, it is only in the scenario of a large number of low EL encounters that these things are balanced against the straight singleclassers. That is where they are balanced, and is really the only reason to take these prcs from a mechanical point of view....
In short, what you really seem to be telling me here is that EK and MT work the way you run a game. That's fine, if it works for the way you play, then by all means use them.
In short, I could say the same for you. But please don't assault me with the delusion that your way is maintained by the majority of dms. Quite frankly, you haven't provided any evidence of it, though you have proven to be a master of intentional misinterrpretation and selective readings.
Last edited:
