Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Little Raven" data-source="post: 4333516" data-attributes="member: 10095">No, but you can design one that doesn't favor one character type (spellcasters) to the almost total exclusion of all others. When people are saying "Well, at high level, stop playing <class X> and make a spellcaster," that is a problem which can be solved. Suggesting that serious mechanical and utility imbalances are the DM's problem to deal with is just lazy game design philosophy.Yes, it is. Which is why "wizard uber alles" is bad game design for this type of game. You can't really work as a group when you're overshadowing the group within their own roles.And it should work because it's designed well, not putting the onus of balance considerations on the DM.This is false. By removing all of the "I WIN!" capabilities from the wizard, you make it a class that plays WITH the group, rather than ABOVE the group.Quoting the 1e DMG at me doesn't mean much. I'm notorious for not having much respect for Gygax's game design philosophy (especially if that recurring story about all his players being spellcasters and the non-spellcasters being all henchmen is true).I agree DMing is challenging and rewarding. However, making the DM take up the slack of game design because a designer either can't be bothered to do it or simply favors one character type over others (which is the rumor) is just lazy on the designers' part.</blockquote>