Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6522521" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Okay so a few things. Firstly, &quot;relatively equal&quot; is hardly an exacting standard to meet, so please don't characterize my position as some kind of drive for mathematical perfection. And even if it were a rigorous standard, there are plenty of reasons for having different classes. Pemerton covered one end: different areas of focus. A Rogue, a Wizard, and a Fighter might be &quot;relatively equal&quot; in power at all levels, but capable of very different things. But there's another end to it too: different archetypes, and the degree to which you want to differentiate them. Are all characters that kill with some kind of physical implement &quot;Fighters,&quot; or is it deeper than that? Does using magic definitely preclude being a &quot;Fighter,&quot; or is it broader than that? Etc. Aesthetic reasons for having different classes are still perfectly valid.I also strongly disagree with the notion that it is an &quot;interesting choice&quot; to be good early and poor late, or good late and poor early, or any combination or blending thereof. If you're an active participant in the game, the game should equip you with tools, knowledge, and a chance to learn and improve (both from successes and mistakes) without having to ditch your concept in all but rare cases. Choosing what block of sessions you get to have maximal agency is hardly a good thing, IMO. Especially given the fact that &quot;good late&quot; has been, in D&amp;D editions, almost always superior to &quot;good early,&quot; both in absolute and relative terms.I was exclusively considering the stuff you get for being a Moon Druid, since that's the example that was mentioned. Unless summoning is specially empowered for Moon Druids, of course. Don't have a copy on hand to check.The point is: people gush over how OP Moon Druid Wild Shape is...but it's really only OP for specific windows. Its power comes in discrete chunks, rather than &quot;smoothly.&quot; So people fret about how powerful it is and try to nerf it, not realizing that although it might seem bazonkers at level 2, if you nerf it, a few levels later it's not so hot. Then you hit the next improvement and it spikes, sailing over other characters to a high point. It's this zig-zagging I don't care for. I freely admit, it's a preference and not an objective fact--but I strongly believe everyone has a better experience when no one can expect to feel &quot;marginalized,&quot; in a purely game-mechanical sense, at any point along their adventure, and the heavy zig-zagging of the Moon Druid's kit-specific stuff seems to encourage exactly that kind of situation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6522521, member: 6790260"] Okay so a few things. Firstly, "relatively equal" is hardly an exacting standard to meet, so please don't characterize my position as some kind of drive for mathematical perfection. And even if it were a rigorous standard, there are plenty of reasons for having different classes. Pemerton covered one end: different areas of focus. A Rogue, a Wizard, and a Fighter might be "relatively equal" in power at all levels, but capable of very different things. But there's another end to it too: different archetypes, and the degree to which you want to differentiate them. Are all characters that kill with some kind of physical implement "Fighters," or is it deeper than that? Does using magic definitely preclude being a "Fighter," or is it broader than that? Etc. Aesthetic reasons for having different classes are still perfectly valid. I also strongly disagree with the notion that it is an "interesting choice" to be good early and poor late, or good late and poor early, or any combination or blending thereof. If you're an active participant in the game, the game [I]should[/I] equip you with tools, knowledge, and a chance to learn and improve (both from successes and mistakes) without having to ditch your concept in all but rare cases. Choosing what block of sessions you get to have maximal agency is hardly a good thing, IMO. Especially given the fact that "good late" has been, in D&D editions, almost always superior to "good early," both in absolute and relative terms. I was exclusively considering the stuff you get for being a [I]Moon[/I] Druid, since that's the example that was mentioned. Unless summoning is specially empowered for Moon Druids, of course. Don't have a copy on hand to check. The point is: people gush over how OP Moon Druid Wild Shape is...but it's really only OP for specific windows. Its power comes in discrete chunks, rather than "smoothly." So people fret about how powerful it is and try to nerf it, not realizing that although it might seem bazonkers at level 2, if you nerf it, a few levels later it's not so hot. Then you hit the next improvement and it spikes, sailing over other characters to a high point. It's this zig-zagging I don't care for. I freely admit, it's a preference and not an objective fact--but I strongly believe everyone has a better experience when no one [I]can expect[/I] to feel "marginalized," in a purely game-mechanical sense, at any point along their adventure, and the [I]heavy[/I] zig-zagging of the Moon Druid's kit-specific stuff seems to encourage exactly that kind of situation. [/QUOTE]

Verification