Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4656787" data-attributes="member: 7635">Ugh. That is my SECOND least favorite way of balancing out character classes. XP charts is the first. The problem with this method of balance is that classes end up shining in 1-2 types of encounters, and twiddle their thumbs in the rest of them. Even worse, when an adventure (or even DMs campaign) lends itself to a certain style of game, than classes become permanently ascendant. This is common in some of your examples: DMs who love undead foes teach their PCs to avoid rogues (beyond trapfinding), illusionist/enchanters, monks, and characters who fight with high-threat weapons. DMs who spend a lot more time in dungeons than forests find they don't get many druids, rangers, or scouts. As a parting example, my DM once ran Crypt of the Devil Lich (DCC). It doesn't give anything away to say that the module is full of uncritable monsters (undead, golems, elementals). So as the resident rogue, I was bi-polar on it. It was great to be loved for trap-finding, but when combat broke out; the fighter shone (power-attack + GWS = pain), the cleric shone (massive buffs + undead killing powerz) the ranger shone (FE undead), and the wizard shone (lots of nuke-magic) but I, the lowly rogue, couldn't sneak attack, couldn't break their DRs (or some of their ACs, for that matter) so I frequently HiPS'd and went to the bathroom during combat because I was THAT useful. If one of your players frequently feels useless in a major activity of your game (be it rogues fighting undead or a druid in a dungeon) something needs to be fixed so that the player feels he's contributing SOMETHING. Otherwise, why bother?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 4656787, member: 7635"] Ugh. That is my SECOND least favorite way of balancing out character classes. XP charts is the first. The problem with this method of balance is that classes end up shining in 1-2 types of encounters, and twiddle their thumbs in the rest of them. Even worse, when an adventure (or even DMs campaign) lends itself to a certain style of game, than classes become permanently ascendant. This is common in some of your examples: DMs who love undead foes teach their PCs to avoid rogues (beyond trapfinding), illusionist/enchanters, monks, and characters who fight with high-threat weapons. DMs who spend a lot more time in dungeons than forests find they don't get many druids, rangers, or scouts. As a parting example, my DM once ran Crypt of the Devil Lich (DCC). It doesn't give anything away to say that the module is full of uncritable monsters (undead, golems, elementals). So as the resident rogue, I was bi-polar on it. It was great to be loved for trap-finding, but when combat broke out; the fighter shone (power-attack + GWS = pain), the cleric shone (massive buffs + undead killing powerz) the ranger shone (FE undead), and the wizard shone (lots of nuke-magic) but I, the lowly rogue, couldn't sneak attack, couldn't break their DRs (or some of their ACs, for that matter) so I frequently HiPS'd and went to the bathroom during combat because I was THAT useful. If one of your players frequently feels useless in a major activity of your game (be it rogues fighting undead or a druid in a dungeon) something needs to be fixed so that the player feels he's contributing SOMETHING. Otherwise, why bother? [/QUOTE]

Verification