Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 9133890" data-attributes="member: 7808">To address the main argument here, I would say that this works well on a small scale, but falls apart on the larger scale.&nbsp; Obviously, it becomes much more nebulous to try and compare something to &quot;all&quot; as &quot;all&quot; gets bigger.&nbsp; And this isn't just a question of size, it's a question of applicability.&nbsp; There are always gray areas of classes (or spells, whatever) designed for specific settings, modules, or circumstances.&nbsp; Inevitably, an argument will occur where someone claims &quot;we have to consider this class&quot; and someone says &quot;we can't consider that class&quot;.&nbsp; Trying to make some sort of a universal rule about what &quot;all&quot; covers will only make these arguments worse.But at an even larger scale, this is a recipe for power creep.&nbsp; Yes, it is wrong to only to consider the &quot;weakest&quot; (whatever that means) classes for comparison.&nbsp; But if you compare every class to the &quot;strongest&quot; class, it also quickly leads to design where every class is near the top end of the power scale.&nbsp; Which inevitably makes the top end more powerful, and leads to more powerful classes.&nbsp; Over time, what is considered &quot;balanced&quot; at the end is no longer &quot;balanced&quot; with what you had at the beginning.The better solution, IMNSO, is to have a base set of classes that you compare a particular class to when considering balance.&nbsp; But good luck getting group of nerds to agree on what that set is.&nbsp; As new, innovative classes are released, you can't rely on just the core set.&nbsp; And as more options come out (more spells, domains, fighting archtypes, warlock pacts, etc), even the core/base classes will change.&nbsp;<img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging&nbsp; &nbsp; :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> Balance is hard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deset Gled, post: 9133890, member: 7808"] To address the main argument here, I would say that this works well on a small scale, but falls apart on the larger scale. Obviously, it becomes much more nebulous to try and compare something to "all" as "all" gets bigger. And this isn't just a question of size, it's a question of applicability. There are always gray areas of classes (or spells, whatever) designed for specific settings, modules, or circumstances. Inevitably, an argument will occur where someone claims "we have to consider this class" and someone says "we can't consider that class". Trying to make some sort of a universal rule about what "all" covers will only make these arguments worse. But at an even larger scale, this is a recipe for power creep. Yes, it is wrong to only to consider the "weakest" (whatever that means) classes for comparison. But if you compare every class to the "strongest" class, it also quickly leads to design where every class is near the top end of the power scale. Which inevitably makes the top end more powerful, and leads to more powerful classes. Over time, what is considered "balanced" at the end is no longer "balanced" with what you had at the beginning. The better solution, IMNSO, is to have a base set of classes that you compare a particular class to when considering balance. But good luck getting group of nerds to agree on what that set is. As new, innovative classes are released, you can't rely on just the core set. And as more options come out (more spells, domains, fighting archtypes, warlock pacts, etc), even the core/base classes will change. 🤷‍♂️ Balance is hard. [/QUOTE]

Verification