Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 5815327">You technically can't have power parity with different &quot;roles&quot;, ie: comparing the parity of a defender to a striker, and a striker to a leader is difficult because they're supposed to do different things.Power parity can only truly be cross-role compared in terms of effectivness.&nbsp; Is the leader's healing keeping up with the damage being dealt?&nbsp; Is the defender's defensivness surviving?&nbsp; Is the striker's strikeryness enough to end the combat before everyone is running on empty?Actual power parity comparisons can really on be made between two similar roles.&nbsp; Are the wizard and the ranger dealing out approximate damage?&nbsp; Are warlock and the invoker controllering at about the same level?Their effects will differ, their damage styles and types will differ.&nbsp; a Wizard may cast a massive fireball that takes two rounds but does 10d6.&nbsp; A rogue may do 2d6 per weapon per round.&nbsp; After two rounds, the wziard is pulling ahead by sheer dice-rolled, but the rogue could be pulling ahead in actual damage done.&nbsp; After the combat is over, did both of their damage contribute substantially to the ending of combat?&nbsp; If yes, then we have power parity.I don't think anyone is arguing that we need to give the bard a lute that does 1d10+cha mod damage twice per turn.&nbsp; You can't really do much more than say &quot;GM, you should make situations that challenge all character roles&quot; in a book.&nbsp; I mean how do you define a social-based encounter.&nbsp; It can come in so many different forms.&nbsp; Sure, and that's a balanced game.&nbsp; An unbalanced game comes from when the wizard who took only the most wizardy stuff he can find out-tanks the tank who took all the best tanking things he can find.&nbsp; If one class without specializing is able to do the roles of other, specialized classes, then there's a problem.But not every class is a single role, the Cleric is also a high-cha character and should do reasonably well right along-side the bard in certain situations(say, dealing with the police or church who may consider bards unsavory types).&nbsp; The sorcerer and wizard are also high &quot;communication&quot; characters, but too would excell in their own social situations.&nbsp; Some of these all may overlap, perhaps it's a church of magic?&nbsp; Perhaps the town guards are musicians.&nbsp; ect....&nbsp; Even still, when a silver tongue cannot win them over, the muscle of the fighter can still come in handy in social situations well.All roles overlap, but no single class should have a monopoly on a single role or situation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 5815327"] You technically can't have power parity with different "roles", ie: comparing the parity of a defender to a striker, and a striker to a leader is difficult because they're supposed to do different things. Power parity can only truly be cross-role compared in terms of effectivness. Is the leader's healing keeping up with the damage being dealt? Is the defender's defensivness surviving? Is the striker's strikeryness enough to end the combat before everyone is running on empty? Actual power parity comparisons can really on be made between two similar roles. Are the wizard and the ranger dealing out approximate damage? Are warlock and the invoker controllering at about the same level? Their effects will differ, their damage styles and types will differ. a Wizard may cast a massive fireball that takes two rounds but does 10d6. A rogue may do 2d6 per weapon per round. After two rounds, the wziard is pulling ahead by sheer dice-rolled, but the rogue could be pulling ahead in actual damage done. After the combat is over, did both of their damage contribute substantially to the ending of combat? If yes, then we have power parity. I don't think anyone is arguing that we need to give the bard a lute that does 1d10+cha mod damage twice per turn. You can't really do much more than say "GM, you should make situations that challenge all character roles" in a book. I mean how do you define a social-based encounter. It can come in so many different forms. Sure, and that's a balanced game. An unbalanced game comes from when the wizard who took only the most wizardy stuff he can find out-tanks the tank who took all the best tanking things he can find. If one class without specializing is able to do the roles of other, specialized classes, then there's a problem. But not every class is a single role, the Cleric is also a high-cha character and should do reasonably well right along-side the bard in certain situations(say, dealing with the police or church who may consider bards unsavory types). The sorcerer and wizard are also high "communication" characters, but too would excell in their own social situations. Some of these all may overlap, perhaps it's a church of magic? Perhaps the town guards are musicians. ect.... Even still, when a silver tongue cannot win them over, the muscle of the fighter can still come in handy in social situations well. All roles overlap, but no single class should have a monopoly on a single role or situation. [/QUOTE]

Verification