NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 210432" data-attributes="member: 172">Well, yeah, but that doesn't say a whole hell of a lot, now does it. If the point were merely that 3e isn't perfect, we would be in "perfect" agreement.What I was taking issue was the statement "You haven't seen an explanation of the problems with 3rd edition, have you had your eyes closed?" To which I answered yes I have seen many such statements, but IME, most such statements are mere grousing without much substance. "Not perfect" does not mean that every comentary that detracts from the game has any basis in reality.So you would give a ranger more? A multi class fighter/druid, for example, would have an impugned casting level as well, plus would have a lower attack bonus than a ranger. The ranger is QUITE a competant class despite windage to the contrary.And this has what to do with balance?Since I don't have it yet, no.However, having access to new goodies does not equate to more power, sorry. The availability of items is still restricted by the character's resources.Yep, the flying wizard has it all over the rogue in terms of mobility. Am I supposed to be shocked?Of course I have. Don't be insulting.Oooh, the classic "if you give me the authority to decide the situation, my supposedly uber-character will always win" argument.Any party worth their salt fighting a wizard will have means to remove enchantments and corner the wizard.Hate to break it to you, but in 3e, money = power = resources.Infinite spells? What bunk.First off, the spells available to a wizard overall AREN'T infinite, because neither is his cash.Second, the spells are further restricted by the fact that the wizard can only prepare a limited number of spells.The problem is that I don't happen to agree they are useless. They may be useless to a particular character. But nearly every feat and spell has some utility. It's not what your character needs or wants? Then don't take it.Stop right there. If you want to know my reasoning, I'll tell you. Don't tell me. That is just strawman bashing.That's circular logic - including your conclusion in the premise. The problem is that they aren't imbalanced and I never agreed to any such notion, so I take offense at your notion of labeling this "my reasoning." A lot of playtesting went into the core classes, and I consider them fairly balanced. Not perfectly, mind you, but considering that the situations in a game will vary wildly, I think they are about as well balance as can be expected.No, I don't see a problem with these guys, because your tired prattle has not demonstrated some great imbalance, nor could it.Okay, but do all powers have to have the same appeal?Did you read my statement at all? I never said the pudding should adapt. I said YOU should adapt. If YOU know that given the resources and tactics the party uses, then YOU should feel free to downgrade the challenge of the encounter. In fact, the book recommends just this. YOU are not dismissed from using your brain in ajudicating encounters.Shocking grasp seems weaker to me, too. But it is definitely too strong to be a 0-level spell. And though possibly not the best selection, it's not a bad offensive spell. The problem you seem to be having here is that feats and spell levels don't all have exactly the same level of power. I really don't see that as a huge problem. A small problem, perhaps, but not one that is really going to create a problem in play. And games are made to be played.And I think you are a grouser who makes mountains out of molehills.Oh can it? I would like to see you try. Take for example the "ranger is weak" bandwagon, which you seem to be a charter member of. Nearly every "alt.ranger" I have seen gives the ranger power on a silver platter. If that's the row you want to hoe, I daresay that the designers have a much better bead on what is balanced than you do. And judging from the remainder of your analyses, I can only conclude that is precisely the case.</blockquote>

Verification