Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6549349" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Completely agreed. This is why I'm not especially keen on design that has players "pay for" great power later on by being "weak" to start off. Everyone should, roughly speaking, have the same level of ability to impact the world they're playing around in. They may achieve that power in radically different ways, and may be very strong in some areas and weak or even helpless in others, but "net" power should be roughly equivalent.To say it a different way: If there were a way to rank classes on a scale from 1 to 10 with 10 being the best, I feel many editions of D&D have either put classes on a relatively strict scale that disadvantages some of them over others (e.g. 3e had Fighters and Monks at a 4 or 5, while Wizards, Clerics, and Druids were all rocking solid 10s), or starts Fighters off at 7 and Wizards off at 4 and has them slowly move in opposite directions (though, admittedly, in many of the editions where I think this is true, it's more like the Fighter "holds his ground" while the Wizard eventually exceeds him). In my opinion, ALL classes should be in the 8-10 range: it's okay that some of them are really quite awesome and others are a little more niche, but all of them should "feel" powerful and competent, should be "a blast to play" for someone with even a slight active interest in playing one.This is why I believe having solid design goals for every class is so terrifically important. I believe that if the designers fail to give specific, well-articulated design goals (NOT the same as player goals!) to each class, then some or all those classes will end up being substantially inferior or superior to others. Particularly when you add in the commonly-held perception that "magic can do anything!!", the magic-using classes thus innately creep higher and higher up the power scale, while the purely (or "mostly," e.g. excluding magic-using subclasses) non-magic-using classes fall behind. If the designers can decide on specific goals before they write any mechanics, those mechanics will have a guide, something to help rein in the excesses and highlight the deficiencies so that players won't have "too much power and ability," at least to the fullest extent that design can address that issue. (Obviously, perverse players and/or DMs can always break anything.)Some times, for some games, and some players--sure! But for other times, other games, and other players, it can be and has been absolutely fine to play dragons, balrogs, robots with lasers, and a huge variety of other zany, gonzo things. What the game does "better" or "worse" depends far more heavily on the kind of challenge the DM chooses to provide. Some editions make it very easy for the DM to see what kind of challenge is provided, some require a great deal f familiarity before you can get to that point. Some games are harder on the players (or the DM) if those challenges are specifically made (or allowed to be) widely varying, while others shrug and accept the unpredictability as a fact of play.In general, I would agree that earlier editions (0e, 1e, B/X and its family) lend themselves to a low-fantasy, "zero to hero (and/or bloodsmear)" style, by dint of their numbers, their design choices, and by far most importantly, the advocated DMing style. 3e, 4e, and to a lesser extent 5e are more high-action, to one degree or another; 5e has tried to include some of the early-edition style in the first few levels, where characters are frail, have very few options, and build relatively quickly. Past level 5 or so, the game has transitioned almost fully to the 3e style at the mechanical level, though monster design and a few other things can still potentially bring more of the early-edition style back in (though this is true of essentially any game).And if someone is jonesing for the Twin Strike-y kind of Ranger, I'd probably point them in that direction. If someone wants a Beastmaster, on the other hand...well, they don't really have much option, now do they? Plus being a Fighter pretty damn heavily shortchanges you in terms of non-combat effects. Rangers of times past had plenty of non-combat things they could do, without having to expend extra resources. The background helps a lot, to be sure, but it only goes so far.</blockquote>

Verification