Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8993051" data-attributes="member: 29398">It is, and then again isn't, a separate conversation; in that when considering changes to any class one can't just look at the single class in isolation but must also consider the effects of those changes when someone multiclasses into (or out of) the class you're changing.The only viable way to prevent - or at least tamp down to a dull roar - exploits and munchkin-ism is to bake in rules that prevent those combos from occurring.Here it depends on one's design focus and agenda.  Are (the hypothetical) we designing to specifically encourage group or party play, or are we designing for solo play (as in, one player, one character, and a DM)?  This is a big divide; in that characters designed for group play can be specialists with clear strengths and baked-in weaknesses while characters designed to work well in solo play need to be able to more or less do everything.  Thus, characters designed for solo-play are likely to overall out-power characters of the same level designed for group play, meaning we either can't design for both at once or, if we do, there has to be some restriction on the solo-play characters if-when used in group play.  My own answer here is to not even try to design for solo play and instead focus on group play.However, players also come to recognize the bit I highlighted; and realize it's in their better interests to try to build those do-it-all characters.  Here, the game either needs to push back at the design level or somewhat sacrifice its group-play design paradigm; as if one character can do it all then what's the point of the group?Balancing them (against each other) is going to be difficult anyway.  And yes, some would be damage-plus (e.g. full damage plus pushback), some would be damage-or (e.g. my knock-prone idea), and some could even be part-damage-plus (e.g. half-damage plus disarm).I get this, and while there's some low-hanging fruit there it's not an easy fix overall.First off, from their initial knight-with-extras roots Paladins have gone much too far towards being casters.  As other caster classes have emerged, I'd have pushed Paladins more toward the knight side; even more so as there's no specific knight or cavalier class any more and that's a pretty major archetype.Bards as currently designed are superfluous; yet again the whole class needs rebuilding from the ground up.  It shouldn't be able to replace a Rogue's role in a party.  And both Bards and Wizards have become too resilient and Wizards have become, dare I say, too good at combat - their once-weaknesses have been filled in with no corresponding drawback added.Monks, however, could do with a bit more to them; they're the obvious on-ramp for a bespoke psionics system but for some reason WotC don't seem to want to go there.Ideally, your Bard-Pally-Wizard-Cleric party should find itself really lacking in the stealth/sneak/scouting department; but beyond that it's viable.That all said, yes, in any edition a Fighter-Monk-Barbarian-Rogue party would be seen as having holes in its lineup.  Throw in a healer of any type, though, and it's quite viable.Part of that, I think, comes from the emergence of "social mechanics".  Time was, you could for example viably play any character with half-decent Cha - even a Ranger - as a negotiator, thus giving it more to do than just bash things or sneak around.  Not so much, now.And this gets back to my point about characters who can do a bit of everything.  Ideally each class has something it's the best at (or at least very good at) and has something it's the worst at (or very bad, anyway).  Rangers should, for example, be the best at outdoors exploration while Rogues are the best at indoor exploration.  Druids should be the best class to have when outdoors and the worst to have underground.  And so on.</blockquote>

Verification