Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TerraDave" data-source="post: 8461257" data-attributes="member: 22260">Some good answers here.Just to add, I certainly don't think the intent was to unbalance or mess up the classes. But 3e had goals that pulled in different directions. For example, the desire to add flexibility without unbalancing the game created a fair number of traps options, as versatility almost always came at a power cost, and was sometimes just a bad idea in practice. On top of that was the system mastery issues raised above. 3E also sought to preserve a certain verisimilitude (a word heavily used at the time) or Gygaxian naturalism. So sneak attack was better then backstab, but it had restrictions that certainly nerfed the rogue class. Similarly, you could try all sorts of maneuvers in combat, but unless the character had special training, they would risk an opportunity attack.But clearly the big issue was the boost to spell casters. Each change probably made sense on its own, but it left the game increasingly unbalanced at mid and higher levels, more so in past editions. Casters didn't have many low level spells, so they got more. Saves seemed wonky, and were changed in ways that benefited high level casters (and actually also nerfed non-casters at higher levels). Magic resistance and other kinds of monster invulnerability were toned down. Druids and clerics were buffed more. But I don't think the intent was to skew the game. Rogues and fighters also got things, it just didn't balance out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TerraDave, post: 8461257, member: 22260"] Some good answers here. Just to add, I certainly don't think the intent was to unbalance or mess up the classes. But 3e had goals that pulled in different directions. For example, the desire to add flexibility [I]without[/I] unbalancing the game created a fair number of traps options, as versatility almost always came at a power cost, and was sometimes just a bad idea in practice. On top of that was the system mastery issues raised above. 3E also sought to preserve a certain verisimilitude (a word heavily used at the time) or Gygaxian naturalism. So sneak attack was better then backstab, but it had restrictions that certainly nerfed the rogue class. Similarly, you could try all sorts of maneuvers in combat, but unless the character had special training, they would risk an opportunity attack. But clearly the big issue was the boost to spell casters. Each change probably made sense on its own, but it left the game increasingly unbalanced at mid and higher levels, more so in past editions. Casters didn't have many low level spells, so they got more. Saves seemed wonky, and were changed in ways that benefited high level casters (and actually also nerfed non-casters at higher levels). Magic resistance and other kinds of monster invulnerability were toned down. Druids and clerics were buffed more. But I don't think the intent was to skew the game. Rogues and fighters also got things, it just didn't balance out. [/QUOTE]

Verification