Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 5044950" data-attributes="member: 7635">Viable. You conflate two different "level" balance ideas. The first is that a 12th level thief and a 12th level magic-user should has some nod to balance (options available, raw power, or spotlight time) and the second is that a 12th level thief should be equal to a 1st level fighter (who is replacing the 12th level magic-user who just died). The second is preposterous as it defeats the point of levels. No one, except a few interested in redesigning a game from scratch, feels 1st and 12th level should roughly the same power level. The first is IMHO vital. Otherwise you create a "tier" system where some classes begin (or end) simply better than others. If it was a simple as "fighters start good, but get worse while mages just the opposite) it'd be passable, but both classes can overshadow thieves, while a ranger is clearly a superior choice to a fighter, and a well-run cleric can overshadow both. Combat is a ubiquitous marker to use. I still prefer the concept of "each character excels in a niche no other class can match". Balance. Fighters should dominate combat. Thieves should be the perfect scout/spy/assassin. Clerics are masters of healing/defensive magic, mages should have offensive, summoning and transportation magic bar-none. Other classes can dabble in a second role (clerics make fine 2nd fighters, mages get some defensive spells) but no class should do its role AND another role better than the class designed for it. (IE a ranger is a better scout/spy and combatant than a fighter AND thief).Lastly, every class should have some option in combat, even if its less-superior than the fighters. Thieves get backstab, clerics are decent fighters with a bit of offense, mages have polymorphs and summons, etc. NOTHING is more boring than sitting through combat after combat doing nothing (or maybe a few points of missile damage) while your friends are having a blast hacking up goblins or throwing fire-and-lightning. "A good party balance would be something like 40% fighters, 30% magic-users, 20% clerics and 10% thieves." - Lawrence Schick, White Plume Mountain."The optimum mix for a group is 9 characters of various classes..." Gary Gygax, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief.D&D has ALWAYS been about the party. Its not a collection of individuals, its a TEAMWORK-based game. A good game should challenge all players and all classes that are there; the hallmark of a poor DM is one who believes all challenges should be overcome by only magic or combat alone. Every encounter should be in a survivable range. If there is a dragon, even a powerful one the PCs have no business fighting, it should still be young enough the PCs might survive a breath-weapon strike while fleeing. Pitching a great wyrm with a blast so powerful its "save 1/2" damage is guaranteed to drop even the barbarian to -10 isn't a challenge, its a turkey shoot. If the PCs are foolish enough to want the fight the dragon, all bets are off. But having a fighting chance (even if its just to retreat) goes a long way to fostering good PC/DM will, and I find if PCs believe they will die from EVERYTHING (goblin ambushes at night, every lock a death-poisoned needle, every dragon a great wyrm) the game either slows down to the point of 45 minute argument at every door, or a group of WTF PCs kicking in every door in a moment of chaotic frenzy that would make a Toon Player proud.</blockquote>

Verification