Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 7694176" data-attributes="member: 6683613">A 70% improvement isn't &quot;overwhelmingly better&quot;?Lightning bolt.You seem to be thinking that I'm saying every spell gained at 9th level should be equivalent.&nbsp; I'm not.&nbsp; Obviously, ranger spells are weaker than wizard spells at that level, and we can indicate that relative weakness by saying that rangers get &quot;3rd-level&quot; spells and wizards get &quot;5th-level&quot; spells.What I'm saying is that we should evaluate the balance of a class' spells relative to the levels at which the class gains the spells, not by comparing the spells to different spells that a different class gets at a different level.&nbsp; &quot;3rd-level&quot; is a rough indicator of the power of a 9th-level ranger's spells.&nbsp; If WotC prints a new 3rd-level ranger spell that's better than a 3rd-level wizard spell, this is not automatically a balance problem -- especially not if the spell is in an area where we expect rangers to excel and wizards not so much.&nbsp; Rangers are not wizards.&nbsp; They have different strengths and weaknesses, and different mechanical requirements.&nbsp; And the same, of course, goes for psions.[hr][/hr]My point is that every casting class can (and should) have some of what you call &quot;known outliers&quot; on its spell list to represent the class' relative strengths and weaknesses in different areas of magic.&nbsp; If the psion is better than the wizard at telepathy and telekinesis, just call it a &quot;known outlier&quot; if you like and then move on, unless it actually breaks the game.You're reading way way too much into that one sentence.&nbsp; I'm not advocating tossing out spell levels, and I think I was pretty clear about that in my post when I said, &quot;It would have been more confusing for other purposes, but it would be more accurate for the purpose we're discussing here, of class balance.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 7694176, member: 6683613"] A 70% improvement isn't "overwhelmingly better"? [I]Lightning bolt[/I]. You seem to be thinking that I'm saying every spell gained at 9th level should be equivalent. I'm not. Obviously, ranger spells are weaker than wizard spells at that level, and we can indicate that relative weakness by saying that rangers get "3rd-level" spells and wizards get "5th-level" spells. What I'm saying is that we should evaluate the balance of a class' spells relative to the levels at which the class gains the spells, not by comparing the spells to different spells that a different class gets at a different level. "3rd-level" is a [I]rough[/I] indicator of the power of a 9th-level ranger's spells. If WotC prints a new 3rd-level ranger spell that's better than a 3rd-level wizard spell, this is not automatically a balance problem -- especially not if the spell is in an area where we expect rangers to excel and wizards not so much. Rangers are not wizards. They have different strengths and weaknesses, and different mechanical requirements. And the same, of course, goes for psions. [hr][/hr] My point is that every casting class can (and should) have some of what you call "known outliers" on its spell list to represent the class' relative strengths and weaknesses in different areas of magic. If the psion is better than the wizard at telepathy and telekinesis, just call it a "known outlier" if you like and then move on, unless it actually breaks the game. You're reading way way too much into that one sentence. I'm not advocating tossing out spell levels, and I think I was pretty clear about that in my post when I said, "It would have been more confusing for other purposes, but it would be more accurate for the purpose we're discussing here, of class balance." [/QUOTE]

Verification