Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3982658" data-attributes="member: 22779">The problem is, I don't think this meshes with what we've been told.  The reason they're scaling down casters, for example, and bumping up fighters isn't to make the party stronger, but to bring parity between the classes.  Despite the fact that wizard and fighter have different roles, the power changes of the classes is to bring balance between the classes, not between the roles.So a party with two fighters and no wizard isn't hosed.  It might be less effective in some situations, and more effective in others, since its somewhat more specialized than a strictly balanced party, but, overall, it should be okay.  We shouldn't see situations where you MUST HAVE a given class *cough*cleric*cough* in order to succeed.  Particularly in combat.  While direct balance is impossible (you'll never have all classes doing the exact same damage per round), you can make things more balanced than before.  Wizards will no longer be able to outshine everyone at certain levels, a party of four clerics is no longer the strongest party you can make.  That sort of thing.Now, whether they succeed at this or not is another issue.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  But, hopefully, a party with a striker, controller and two defenders is no less effective overall than a party with all four roles.  Outliers where the entire party is only one role can be ignored because they almost never come up in play.</blockquote>

Verification