Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5971040" data-attributes="member: 32536">You know, later 3E stuff was a lot better balanced than early 3E stuff, by a pretty huge margin. Both the weakest 3E classes and the strongest 3E classes are almost entirely found in the PHB. The fighter and monk were incredibly weak and the full casters were incredibly strong. Later classes like the Warblade, Duskblade, Warlock, and Binder were much, much better balanced against each other. The issue of supplements vs. core is almost irrelevant to the discussion. If WotC has quality control issues, then the game will be imbalanced whether it is core or supplement, but if they don't have those issues than balance will be better.On the the other subject...Certainly, it is hard to balance a proper &quot;mythic fighter&quot; against the &quot;mundane fighter&quot;. This is mostly because it is close to impossible to balance the mundane fighter at all, if you define it as being the no-class features beatstick seen in 3E and the 5E playtest. It has been gravely weaker than casters many times, so much so that it simply isn't in the same league as them. If you accept that as a natural part of the class, then all you need to do is make this clear, and make a mythic fighter that actually is on par with casters, or perhaps in a middle ground where mythic fighters can work alongside more limited casters in a middle tier between mundane fighters and broken-strong full casters. It would be a return to 3E's eccentricity, but as long as it is actually intentional it may be more playable.More to my preference, they would find some way to make the mundane fighter just as strong, but with very different ability sets and such, so that all classes could be equally balanced. This would probably require something unusual like my &quot;play three fighters at once&quot; recommendation from earlier, but it might still be possible. Proper balance would be preferable to tiered quasi-balance, after all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 5971040, member: 32536"] You know, later 3E stuff was a lot better balanced than early 3E stuff, by a pretty huge margin. Both the weakest 3E classes and the strongest 3E classes are almost entirely found in the PHB. The fighter and monk were incredibly weak and the full casters were incredibly strong. Later classes like the Warblade, Duskblade, Warlock, and Binder were much, much better balanced against each other. The issue of supplements vs. core is almost irrelevant to the discussion. If WotC has quality control issues, then the game will be imbalanced whether it is core or supplement, but if they don't have those issues than balance will be better. On the the other subject... Certainly, it is hard to balance a proper "mythic fighter" against the "mundane fighter". This is mostly because it is close to impossible to balance the mundane fighter at all, if you define it as being the no-class features beatstick seen in 3E and the 5E playtest. It has been gravely weaker than casters many times, so much so that it simply isn't in the same league as them. If you accept that as a natural part of the class, then all you need to do is make this clear, and make a mythic fighter that actually is on par with casters, or perhaps in a middle ground where mythic fighters can work alongside more limited casters in a middle tier between mundane fighters and broken-strong full casters. It would be a return to 3E's eccentricity, but as long as it is actually intentional it may be more playable. More to my preference, they would find some way to make the mundane fighter just as strong, but with very different ability sets and such, so that all classes could be equally balanced. This would probably require something unusual like my "play three fighters at once" recommendation from earlier, but it might still be possible. Proper balance would be preferable to tiered quasi-balance, after all. [/QUOTE]

Verification