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
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The Three Pillars and Class Balance
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="Grydan" data-source="post: 5829080" data-attributes="member: 79401"><p>Each class should, by default, be <em>at least competent</em> in each pillar. No class should be, through any selection of options, be <em>completely dominant</em> in any pillar.</p><p></p><p>"As good in combat" is so vague as to be quite meaningless. A 4E fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard are all competent in combat, but are they "as good" as each other? How do you measure that?</p><p></p><p>The rogue can't fill the fighter's shoes. He'd probably die quite rapidly if he attempted to. He can't even start to fill the cleric's shoes, as he has no ability to heal or buff. He might, if he tries really hard, step on the wizard's toes a bit. </p><p></p><p>Is the rogue bad in combat? <strong>Not in the slightest</strong>. Give him an inch and he takes a mile. Focus on the fighter over there trying to attract your attention, and the rogue is going to walk up behind you and <em>mess you up</em>. He'll leave you prone, blind, and bleeding out. Try and catch him and he'll tumble away to go mess with the next person not paying as much attention as he should.</p><p></p><p>They each have areas where they overlap a bit with each other's skill sets, but any straight-up attempt to say "the fighter is better in combat than the rogue" or "the wizard is better in combat than the cleric" comes down to comparing apples and oranges.</p><p></p><p>That's what I want in all of the pillars. I want each class to be able to contribute meaningfully in each, without having to sacrifice basic competence in the other pillars.</p><p></p><p>Some wiggle room is fine. If someone wants to focus their character on Exploration, and doesn't want to grow beyond their class's basic competence in Social or Combat situations, fine. </p><p></p><p>I'm even fine with people who want to make their characters <em>incompetent</em> in one or two pillars. I just don't want that to be the default. I also don't want hyper-specialization to be over-rewarded. </p><p></p><p>Allowing incompetence as an option people can enter into with eyes wide open is fine. Letting it be a trap people can stumble into or be forced into is not. </p><p></p><p>I want rogues who are tricksters and scoundrels. I want fighters who are stalwart and strong. I want wizards who are masters of arcane lore. I want clerics who are wise and powerful. I want all of them to be all of these things in <strong>all three pillars</strong>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grydan, post: 5829080, member: 79401"] Each class should, by default, be [I]at least competent[/I] in each pillar. No class should be, through any selection of options, be [I]completely dominant[/I] in any pillar. "As good in combat" is so vague as to be quite meaningless. A 4E fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard are all competent in combat, but are they "as good" as each other? How do you measure that? The rogue can't fill the fighter's shoes. He'd probably die quite rapidly if he attempted to. He can't even start to fill the cleric's shoes, as he has no ability to heal or buff. He might, if he tries really hard, step on the wizard's toes a bit. Is the rogue bad in combat? [B]Not in the slightest[/B]. Give him an inch and he takes a mile. Focus on the fighter over there trying to attract your attention, and the rogue is going to walk up behind you and [I]mess you up[/I]. He'll leave you prone, blind, and bleeding out. Try and catch him and he'll tumble away to go mess with the next person not paying as much attention as he should. They each have areas where they overlap a bit with each other's skill sets, but any straight-up attempt to say "the fighter is better in combat than the rogue" or "the wizard is better in combat than the cleric" comes down to comparing apples and oranges. That's what I want in all of the pillars. I want each class to be able to contribute meaningfully in each, without having to sacrifice basic competence in the other pillars. Some wiggle room is fine. If someone wants to focus their character on Exploration, and doesn't want to grow beyond their class's basic competence in Social or Combat situations, fine. I'm even fine with people who want to make their characters [I]incompetent[/I] in one or two pillars. I just don't want that to be the default. I also don't want hyper-specialization to be over-rewarded. Allowing incompetence as an option people can enter into with eyes wide open is fine. Letting it be a trap people can stumble into or be forced into is not. I want rogues who are tricksters and scoundrels. I want fighters who are stalwart and strong. I want wizards who are masters of arcane lore. I want clerics who are wise and powerful. I want all of them to be all of these things in [B]all three pillars[/B]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The Three Pillars and Class Balance
Top