Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6653501" data-attributes="member: 996">0D&amp;D had higher levels, too.&nbsp; &nbsp;I'm not into MMOs or video games, myself.&nbsp; But, no, by the same token that anti-martialism/caster-supremacy isn't a new prejudice, balance is not a new concern, it's mentioned repeatedly in that same 1e DMG, for instance.&nbsp; &nbsp;Just look at what Merlin - and the few cleric archetypes called out, for instance, in the 2e PH - actually did.Sadly, the development of classes had as much to do with wargames as genre.&nbsp; Fighters were based on infantry, wizards on artillery, for instance.&nbsp; Merlin didn't defilade himself behind the front line and lob fireballs at the enemy.&nbsp; D&amp;D wizards still do.&nbsp; &nbsp;That's a very hypothetical question, since it's never happened in any edition of D&amp;D.&nbsp; But, balance doesn't require two different player options doing exactly the same things (indeed, it precludes that), just equally viable things in the context of play.To illustrate how bad it's been, try turning that question around.&nbsp; The Tier 1 classes (Wizard, Cleric, Druid) in 3e core /could/ accomplish everything the martial classes could, and often better than they could.&nbsp; I believe the fighter was, what, Tier 5?&nbsp; Clearly, there's no point in a class that another class obviates that way.In 5e, as in 2e, the fighter clings to viability via overwhelmingly high DPR (which also helps 5e with the 'fast combat' goal&nbsp; - ironically, rendering the fighter's sole contribution that little bit less significant).&nbsp; Far from a perfect solution, but better than Tier 5 irrelevance.Of course, the 5e fighter also casts spells.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6653501, member: 996"] 0D&D had higher levels, too. I'm not into MMOs or video games, myself. But, no, by the same token that anti-martialism/caster-supremacy isn't a new prejudice, balance is not a new concern, it's mentioned repeatedly in that same 1e DMG, for instance. Just look at what Merlin - and the few cleric archetypes called out, for instance, in the 2e PH - actually did. Sadly, the development of classes had as much to do with wargames as genre. Fighters were based on infantry, wizards on artillery, for instance. Merlin didn't defilade himself behind the front line and lob fireballs at the enemy. D&D wizards still do. That's a very hypothetical question, since it's never happened in any edition of D&D. But, balance doesn't require two different player options doing exactly the same things (indeed, it precludes that), just equally viable things in the context of play. To illustrate how bad it's been, try turning that question around. The Tier 1 classes (Wizard, Cleric, Druid) in 3e core /could/ accomplish everything the martial classes could, and often better than they could. I believe the fighter was, what, Tier 5? Clearly, there's no point in a class that another class obviates that way. In 5e, as in 2e, the fighter clings to viability via overwhelmingly high DPR (which also helps 5e with the 'fast combat' goal - ironically, rendering the fighter's sole contribution that little bit less significant). Far from a perfect solution, but better than Tier 5 irrelevance. Of course, the 5e fighter also casts spells. [/QUOTE]

Verification