Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="charlesatan" data-source="post: 3396933" data-attributes="member: 20870">First off, it was pointed out sooner because you were talking about the Eldritch Knight. Is the Eldritch Knight broken? We don't think so. Is the Abjurant Champion broken? Arguably so (although I put it with qualification -- a Wiz 10 who takes Abjurant Champion 5 is getting more mileage out of the class than a warrior-mage who does take it).Glass also pointed it out: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3395434&postcount=77" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3395434&postcount=77</a>There's so many statements that are wrong there...1) You seem to have ignored my other inputs such as the Mystic Theurge, the Arcane Trickster, etc. Do you think they're "broken" too? Or flat-out Duskblades and Hexblades, because they're "impinging" on other classes *ahem* roles?2) I can't see how you can claim that "wizards are that good" yet fall short of Clerics. Am I the only one who sees the contradiction there?3) I'm not on the design team, I won't make claims as to why Sorcerers are there. They certainly aren't "nerfed" Wizards -- in fact I see them superior to the Wizard in many ways, from the ability to cast more spells per day to the fact that they're easier to play. I can't claim for a fact why the designers made them but there are several reasons for making them, including the latter part in my previous sentence.By "work" do you mean "balanced"? Because thematically, the Barbarian/Fighter/Eye of Gruumsh/Frenzied Berserker fits. It's a tribal warrior class that explores the berserker motif. It's not me slapping around class A here, class B there, etc. That one actually made sense.And at the end of the day, I can't blame designers for missing "synergy" with other books because at the time of writing the other supplements haven't been published yet (I can blame them for the Abjurant Champion-Mage Armor thing though). Not necessarily. Again, D&D is about teamwork, not about PVP.And even if the solution you propose is true, there's a solution there: throw in multiple opponents. I mean if two people in the party can dish out a gazillion damage in one round, sure, it'll knock out the current threat--assuming there's only two BBEG. Throw in some weak monsters into the mix so that the other players have something to preoccupy themselves. And at the end of the day, "optimized" characters arguably need the other party members as well, whether it's to tank, to heal, to actually converse with the populace, to search for traps, etc.It's also nothing that can't be resolved by the GM and by the players. One can always "cheese out" a system -- it's not just D&D where the system is prone to abuse: any game system is prone to abuse. It's gamers who break it, not necessarily the designers.Not everyone thinks the latter part. Right now it seems that's "your" problem because you're always making that claim. I'm not saying people don't think like that--they do. But that's not the basis of everyone's gaming experience. And just because there's a "problem" with the latter doesn't mean you have to spoil it for the former, those who want a "neat concept". The truth is more likely somewhere reconciling the two, those who want a neat concept but is actually quite useful too.That's quite an assumption. As levels modular? Yes. Are they balanced against each other and "roughly equivalent"? No.You said it yourself: Clerics and Druids are imbalanced. And let's throw in the Wizard as well since you claim "they're that good". Where does that leave us? All the Fighter- and Rogue-types. But wait, some people think Monks and Bards are "weak". And in the Fighter arena, the "Fighter" sucks the most compared to the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger.As for "beefy ability", the Eldritch Knight for example doesn't get a Beefy Ability. Spellcasting IS the beefy ability hence that's what he has. Compare that to the Spellsword which has 1/2 spellcasting. Sure, he doen't get spellcasting at every level but he has two good saves, the ability to cast spells in armor, channel spell, etc.Another criteria thrown into the mix for prestige classes is how hard it is to qualify for them. Look at the Fochulan Lyrists (did I spell that right?). No one's complaining that for over ten levels, they get d6 hit points, two good saves, perfect spellcasting progression, Ftr BAB, and some bard abilities! It's balanced by the fact that it's extremely difficult to qualify for it in the first place (at least three classes you have to multiclass).The Eldritch Knight was a step in the right direction in the sense that you are giving up something, in the same sense that the Mystic Theurge had to give up something. Again, looks too good on paper, not so good in actual play. And some of us here have actually either seen these classes in action or actually played them.The dilemma with options is that it it's player empowerment: players in general want to have more options. As a GM, you don't need to allow it. But yes, as a player, I'd appreciate it if I had more freedom. Mainly because there's more concepts I could play.For example, until the Dread Necromancer from Heroes of Horror, there's no way I'd be able to play a "real" Necromancer: Wizards have the good Necromancy spells while the Clerics did all the animating/controlling. The Dread Necromancer reconciled that as a base class. It was either that or qualify for the True Necromancer prestige class.I'm sure supplements like Stormwrack, for example, fulfilled at least one gamer's Piratey-ideas. That's just an example. It's having mechanics to back up concepts (although not all concepts needs to be backed up by mechanics).No, we're just showing how powerful certain classes can indeed be. Let me say it flat out for you: the existing classes, even running with core, aren't truly balanced with each other in the sense that they're all at the same power level.At the end of the day, D&D is about flavor. That's why you have clerics and wizards although from a logical standpoint, magic is magic and there's really no need to differentiate arcane from divine magic (or even simply limit it to those two kinds).If a player wants to optimize, I can hardly see how he can have "fun" if he's holding back. In another end, if everyone in the group are your so-called "powergamers", then there's no problem as well since each one keeps up with the other.That's not to say a powergamer won't cause inter-party conflict. But the same can be said for the roleplayer who's surrounded by hack-n-slashers (or the hack-n-slasher in a group of roleplayers). Balancing players needs is difficult but it's a demographic problem rather than "it's all the power-gamers's fault". And there's a difference between powergaming and broken-ness.Again, you miss out on the point of the Bard. A Bard is not a Ftr/Wiz. He's the party "support", not the front-liner nor the main spellcaster. If I wanted melee, I could indeed build a better character by going Ftr 10/Wiz 10 than by going Bard 20. And of course Rogues get more skill points than a Bard. No one ever said the Bard was equal to that of a Rogue. That's what "Jack of all trades master of none" entails. Warrior-mages, however, are specialized. And while songs might be "mediocre" for you (I think they're great), no one else really has songs. Songs are the bard's niche in combat. If you don't understand that, well, that's the reason why you've been perceiving bards as sub-optimal.Again, no. The EK is casting buffs on himself. The Sorcerer or Wizard in the party can be hurling fireballs at the opponent, protecting the party in general by reading a counterspell, etc. If the EK is readying a counterspell he's not maximizing his own resources (i.e. high BAB, more hp than the Wizard). If an EK is just going to lob a fireball, he might as well have ditched his EK levels which cost him two caster levels and probably some feats which he didn't need.And at the end of the day, everyone could use extra party members (except a Rog). By your logic, two wizards in the party makes each one redundant. Two wizards in the party means more firepower for your group. I think the problem here is that your perception is that players are competing against each other. If you have that kind of gaming group you have my sympathies. But as we said before, D&D is a co-op game. More characters theoretically means being more efficient in what you're set out to do. Two wizards doesn't make the other one more obsolete, it helps them do what they do best. And I'm talking about Wizards here, not EK's.</blockquote>

Verification