Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jasamcarl" data-source="post: 1190423" data-attributes="member: 1251">Uh, no thanks. I would rather the option of which class i take not be dictated by whether you are running a low or high-powered campaign. And as a DM I would rather base my encounter choices on solid assumptions of party capability per level, as oppossed to having to guestimate what they are capable of thanks to a few lazy, loose design descicions.DM and Plurality of the Party: "Hey, let's fight demons at 3rd level!!!"Lone Player: "But I wanted to play a fighter!"Rest of the Group: "That's your the beauty of 1e/2e, you have the option to be weak and die over and over. The communist conspiracy, aka 3e, would have limited your option to do that by telling you that you are screwed or, even worse, seducing you with the option to play a compitent fighter, thereby forcing you to play at a lower level to be worthless!!!"LP (pondering): "Ok, carry on then..."In conclusion, if a dm wants options in designing a high-magic/low-magic game or tougher/easier challenges, intentionally misbalancing the classes is the worst way of doing this, because you trade off a great deal of ingame tactical options in the process. If you want to add/subtract effectivness from the players, making such a change class neutral is the way to go, by slicing off xp/gp awards or some other method. Atleast 3e gives you some definitive base from which you can develop such a change...</blockquote>