Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8992341" data-attributes="member: 29398">I guess my point is that the lines should be a bit harder; e.g. if you want to be a Wizard then one thing you simply have to abandon is any thought of being much use in melee.&nbsp; Same goes the other way: if you're a Fighter then you're abandoning any thought of casting spells (though there's wiggle room there via magic items).I kinda go the other way: I'd like to see niches be both more relevant and more rigidly enforced.&nbsp; Your class is what it is, and there's only so much fine-tuning you can do to the mechanics. (IMO this is where 0e and 1e had it vaguely right in principle, though the in-practice execution was rather iffy).&nbsp; And if some non-OP archetypes* aren't covered, design new full classes to suit.There's always going to be tradeoffs along the lines of &quot;If you want to do X then you can't do Y&quot;; and I've neither patience nor time any more for those who say &quot;But I want my character to be able to do X, Y, and Z as well!&quot;.&nbsp; No.&nbsp; You do X, and rely on others in your party to do Y and Z and A etc.EDIT to add: thinking about it, there's one place where a do-it-all character does make sense, and that's single-player games.&nbsp; I can see room for an &quot;optional&quot; class designed just for this purpose and banned from normal play.* - this doesn't include Combat Wizards, which are IME almost always (intentionally) overpowered.&nbsp; This might be one archetype we eventually have to concede the game as written and balanced just can't support very well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8992341, member: 29398"] I guess my point is that the lines should be a bit harder; e.g. if you want to be a Wizard then one thing you simply have to abandon is any thought of being much use in melee. Same goes the other way: if you're a Fighter then you're abandoning any thought of casting spells (though there's wiggle room there via magic items). I kinda go the other way: I'd like to see niches be both more relevant and more rigidly enforced. Your class is what it is, and there's only so much fine-tuning you can do to the mechanics. (IMO this is where 0e and 1e had it vaguely right in principle, though the in-practice execution was rather iffy). And if some non-OP archetypes* aren't covered, design new full classes to suit. There's always going to be tradeoffs along the lines of "If you want to do X then you can't do Y"; and I've neither patience nor time any more for those who say "But I want my character to be able to do X, Y, and Z as well!". No. You do X, and rely on others in your party to do Y and Z and A etc. EDIT to add: thinking about it, there's one place where a do-it-all character does make sense, and that's single-player games. I can see room for an "optional" class designed just for this purpose and banned from normal play. * - this doesn't include Combat Wizards, which are IME almost always (intentionally) overpowered. This might be one archetype we eventually have to concede the game as written and balanced just can't support very well. [/QUOTE]

Verification