Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shalewind" data-source="post: 468207" data-attributes="member: 6146">Ah! The classic argument of spellcasters vs. non-spellcasters.I think the main important points have already been mentioned. D&amp;D is not arena combat. While it would be nice in theory that a 15th level bard, matches a 15th level fighter, matches a 15th level x. This however is not the case. As has been said, this is a team game.The idea of support classes and features has also been implemented in 3e. Can you build a bard that matches up to the average fighter, sure. Can you customize any way you like, sure. Can you do the same to other classes, sure.The great thing about 3e is that you can use feats and other features to customize the way you want to go. This makes a character have strengths and weaknesses. Not to mention that most of these are defined by magical equipment (for better or worse), thus it is mostly in the hands of the DM as to want kind of threats the PCs can handle, and which are tough.For those of you that are advocates of class x vs class y, I would ask you, is this even a problem? Is the discussion anything but academic already? Balance in 3e mean making a party of capable adventures capable of handling a set of task as x level. If one character begins to fill too many roles are fills one too well, then he is out of balance with the game.And I would submit to you, an &quot;even and equal&quot; fight is not possible. If it were, then each side would win about 50% of the time. And that would mean you had deliberately set up the terms of the fight so that could happen. So I must ask, what is the point? If you have to press hard to make something happen in a controlled environment, why even be concerned about it?Is a wizard overpowered? The answer is &quot;maybe&quot;. The answer is the same as the question: Is any class overpowered? The answer lies with environment, storyline, magic, magical equipment and thus ultimately the DM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shalewind, post: 468207, member: 6146"] Ah! The classic argument of spellcasters vs. non-spellcasters. I think the main important points have already been mentioned. D&D is not arena combat. While it would be nice in theory that a 15th level bard, matches a 15th level fighter, matches a 15th level x. This however is not the case. As has been said, this is a team game. The idea of support classes and features has also been implemented in 3e. Can you build a bard that matches up to the average fighter, sure. Can you customize any way you like, sure. Can you do the same to other classes, sure. The great thing about 3e is that you can use feats and other features to customize the way you want to go. This makes a character have strengths and weaknesses. Not to mention that most of these are defined by magical equipment (for better or worse), thus it is mostly in the hands of the DM as to want kind of threats the PCs can handle, and which are tough. For those of you that are advocates of class x vs class y, I would ask you, is this even a problem? Is the discussion anything but academic already? Balance in 3e mean making a party of capable adventures capable of handling a set of task as x level. If one character begins to fill too many roles are fills one too well, then he is out of balance with the game. And I would submit to you, an "even and equal" fight is not possible. If it were, then each side would win about 50% of the time. And that would mean you had deliberately set up the terms of the fight so that could happen. So I must ask, what is the point? If you have to press hard to make something happen in a controlled environment, why even be concerned about it? Is a wizard overpowered? The answer is "maybe". The answer is the same as the question: Is any class overpowered? The answer lies with environment, storyline, magic, magical equipment and thus ultimately the DM. [/QUOTE]

Verification