Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ShadowX" data-source="post: 3586427" data-attributes="member: 3720">D&D is almost entirely a group game.  Searching for balance makes sense in something like World of Warcraft where a vast majority of the game is a solo or competitive endeavour.  In a group game, with a clearly identified need for certain archetypes, the need for balance recedes because as long as one class doesn't impede on another class' niche.  Even if some overlap exists, the tolerance for imbalance is higher in a group setting.  Of course, a druid able to wildshape and cast spells pretty much violates any semblance of balance; similarly cleric's martial prowess often overshadows a warrior type character.Aside from those examples (both, oddly, divine casters), I think D&D does a farily good job of assuring everyone a role.  Balance in D&D needs to be confined to comparing classes intended to fill the same role.  You don't compare a wizard and a fighter and declare imbalance because each serves a unique purpose and is balanced in the context of a group.  However, analyzing a barbarian and a fighter side-by-side is a more fruitful juxtaposition for pursuing balance.With that criteria, I would point out these particular problems.  Sorcerers pale in comparison to wizards, monks lack a role, and bards suffer from a variety of problems, but at the root is the inability to adequately fill any of the typical roles.</blockquote>