Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Rule of Three: 7 Feb. 2014
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 6259387" data-attributes="member: 17077"><p>This is what I said about this topic on the WotC boards:</p><p></p><p>The problem I have is that some classes get to be good in all three tiers of play (combat, exploration and interaction), while fighters get to excel in only one, and get absolutely nothing for the other two. Wizards, clerics and druids, for example, can excel in all three, depending on their spell selection. Rangers are superb in combat and exploration. Rogues are decent in combat and really good at the other two. Etc.</p><p></p><p>Some people might argue that this is "balance," but there are some problems with that argument. First, every class gets to do well in combat. Are fighters really that much better at combat than, say, paladins or rangers or wizards? No, they're not. The second, and biggest problem, is that trying to balance across pillars is bad game design. Not every adventure, campaign, gaming group, etc. is going to place equal emphasis on each of the three pillars. Some will feature much more combat. Some will have little combat and tons of roleplaying. Without giving each class at least a minimal degree of competence in all three pillars, you're unfairly punishing those who play certain classes in certain types of adventures or game styles.</p><p></p><p>I'm not suggesting that every class needs to be 100% equal in all three pillars. All I'm saying is that each class needs to be able to be at least competent and have something interesting and fun to offer in all three. Just becuase a class has the name "fighter" doesn't mean it has to be all about fighting. I can think of thematic areas that fit within its niche that help in the other two pillars. Fighters could excel at standing watch and noticing danger, and feats of athletic prowess to help them in the exploration pillar. They could excel at intimidation, leadership, and inspiration for the social pillar. IMO, there's just no excuse for making a 1-dimensional, shallow class that can only do something interesting in combat, and gets to spend the other 2/3 of the game bored with nothing meaningful to contribute.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Falling Icicle, post: 6259387, member: 17077"] This is what I said about this topic on the WotC boards: The problem I have is that some classes get to be good in all three tiers of play (combat, exploration and interaction), while fighters get to excel in only one, and get absolutely nothing for the other two. Wizards, clerics and druids, for example, can excel in all three, depending on their spell selection. Rangers are superb in combat and exploration. Rogues are decent in combat and really good at the other two. Etc. Some people might argue that this is "balance," but there are some problems with that argument. First, every class gets to do well in combat. Are fighters really that much better at combat than, say, paladins or rangers or wizards? No, they're not. The second, and biggest problem, is that trying to balance across pillars is bad game design. Not every adventure, campaign, gaming group, etc. is going to place equal emphasis on each of the three pillars. Some will feature much more combat. Some will have little combat and tons of roleplaying. Without giving each class at least a minimal degree of competence in all three pillars, you're unfairly punishing those who play certain classes in certain types of adventures or game styles. I'm not suggesting that every class needs to be 100% equal in all three pillars. All I'm saying is that each class needs to be able to be at least competent and have something interesting and fun to offer in all three. Just becuase a class has the name "fighter" doesn't mean it has to be all about fighting. I can think of thematic areas that fit within its niche that help in the other two pillars. Fighters could excel at standing watch and noticing danger, and feats of athletic prowess to help them in the exploration pillar. They could excel at intimidation, leadership, and inspiration for the social pillar. IMO, there's just no excuse for making a 1-dimensional, shallow class that can only do something interesting in combat, and gets to spend the other 2/3 of the game bored with nothing meaningful to contribute. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Rule of Three: 7 Feb. 2014
Top