Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6359835" data-attributes="member: 996">Well, I've played & run the prior version at all levels up to 26, so I'm pretty confident that it did solve the class balance issue - and the way it solved it was quite evident (it gave all classes the same proportion of various-recharge resources).  That solution has been rolled back, and 5e has the same kind of class design - some classes with their effectiveness concentrated in at-will resources, others heavily invested in daily resources, each scaling differently - that has failed to deliver class balance in the past.  That's not putting forth an alternate solution.   It's clear enough from the Basic pdf, even if you didn't participate in the playtest (assuming you're familiar with more than one prior edition, that is).  You only need to compare the Fighter or Rogue to the Wizard or Cleric to see the issue, and compare them to the prior ed and classic ed versions to see which those designs more closely resemble.Edit:  I don't want to get into a grindy debate, here, so I'll help you out:  The tack you want to take is not that rolling back solutions is progress, but that progress is bad, and that things like class imbalance are what the fanbase /wants/.  (As proof, you can offer the failure of D&D to hit it's 50-100 million revenue goal, contrasted with the wild success of Pathfinder bringing in 11 million, once D&D stopped putting out any new competing product).</blockquote>

Verification