Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9174643" data-attributes="member: 6801845">I've ignored this thread for a while because I assumed it would just be the same arguments from the same people.  And ... yep.  I'm just going to say that I don't care about carefully balanced classes and I don't think the game designers should either.  What should they care about?  Does the class allow people to build a PC in the image of the fantasy character they envision and want to play in a D&D game?  Is the class fun to play?  Are the classes balanced enough that people feel like they're contributing to the success of the team on a regular basis even if what they contribute varies by class?  As long as the classes are not completely lopsided to the point that one class completely dominates the game, balance does not matter to anyone I've played with.  Different classes serve different roles for people with different expectations.  In my experience fighters have plenty to contribute, even up to level 20.There's not really an objective way of measuring any of this but I think we can look at the number of people playing a class as a very strong indicator of people's subjective judgements.  But this also means that we can't even look at the monk as "needing" anything because D&D's general frame of reference is pseudo-medieval-western-Europe and monks as warriors don't necessarily fit into that picture for a lot of people.  But this idea that better balance should be a goal?  That it would make the game better somehow?  Nah.  It's an issue for a small vocal minority., that's not enough reason to make dramatic changes.  Especially since many of the people posting that feel so strongly about balance don't play or don't want to play the current version of the game.  Unfortunately you can't please everyone, all decisions on a game like D&D are going to be chock full of compromises.</blockquote>

Verification