6E Theory Thoughts on the balance of classes across editions (past, present, future)

[ECMO3]

I've seen that with lucky feat iirc mixed in there. Well played it as well in a level 12 3 shot.

DM struggled to land a save or suck and it was the nastiest fighter I've seen since 2E. Think it had resilient wisdom as well.

Elf version ha elven accuracy and vex with dual wielding and vicious weapons. First one had a pole arm iirc and GWM, mage slayer, resilient wisdom maybe sentinel.

Alert feat swap initiative with Sorcerer, twin hold monster proceed to feed. Cleave and hew into 2 paralyzed giants action surge.

The most powerful and disruptive PC I have seen in play so far in 2024 was a 20th level Champion Fighter.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

I've seen that with lucky feat iirc mixed in there. Well played it as well in a level 12 3 shot.

DM struggled to land a save or suck and it was the nastiest fighter I've seen since 2E. Think it had resilient wisdom as well.

Adamantine plate is funny to throw in also, adding "OK, that's a crit" "no it isn't!" adds to the DM exasperation.

 

[Zardnaar]

r

Adamantine plate is funny to throw in also, adding "OK, that's a crit" "no it isn't!" adds to the DM exasperation.

Wife wants a set via reknown.

 

[One Man [RPG] <studio>]

Cross-edition balance is easier to compare if you separate combat parity from campaign reach. Two classes can contribute similarly in a fight and still differ greatly in how much they can alter information, movement, preparation, contacts, or problems outside combat.

So with martials and spellcasters, I’d first ask what an edition expects to happen between recoveries, how much exploration uncertainty matters, how many problems admit noncombat solutions, and how much a character can change the state of the world without direct exposure. Then I’d compare numbers. That also explains why two tables can judge the same class pairing very differently: one campaign may put pressure exactly where the gap is constrained, while another barely touches those pressures.

 

[Zardnaar]

Cross-edition balance is easier to compare if you separate combat parity from campaign reach. Two classes can contribute similarly in a fight and still differ greatly in how much they can alter information, movement, preparation, contacts, or problems outside combat.

So with martials and spellcasters, I’d first ask what an edition expects to happen between recoveries, how much exploration uncertainty matters, how many problems admit noncombat solutions, and how much a character can change the state of the world without direct exposure. Then I’d compare numbers. That also explains why two tables can judge the same class pairing very differently: one campaign may put pressure exactly where the gap is constrained, while another barely touches those pressures.

I think its easy to find a class that wasnt broken and go from there.

3.5 bard for example. Not broken arguably wrong edition.

Fighter look at prev3E or 4E. Defenders is easily dones via subclass.

Wizards need a high level nerf. A lot of their lvl 3 and 6 things are not great relative to other spellxaster classes. Evoker and Enchanter argue able beaten by metamagic by itself

How you translate that between edition varies. 5 5 fighter influenced by 2E would lose action surge, proficient in all saves and a passive damage boost. Maybe extra attack above and beyond what they get (maybe as a bonus action or cleave ability idk).

Other big F up is way saves work. 200 hp crap wisdom save. Solution is obvious.

Debuff should be required to reliably land a hold monster.

Nova abilities are probably a mistake. Kinda stuck with dailies tbh. How much those dailies do can be looked at espicially single target. AoE isnt s big deal atm it's kinda B tier anyway.