Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7598243" data-attributes="member: 12731">No, that's not what I said. What I want is a game that offers balanced classes if the focus is on combat, since that is by far the most important pillar (regardless of what WotC is trying so say).If that game can ALSO offer balanced classes if the focus is on either of the two other pillars, or even classes that remain balanced for those of you that really spend 1/3 of mechanical effort on combat, 1/3 on social and 1/3 on explor. Myself, any social challenge is resolved with a single check or three checks tops, while any serious combat easily involves a hundred checks, so the mechanical effort is easily 9/10 combat. This is therefore how we weigh abilities from the three pillars.So I'm okay with a fighter focusing on fighting, i.e the combat pillar. (In a way I'm personally not okay with for other pillars) That my fighter only has his Intelligence or Charisma to rely on in other pillars is quite okay, since if I want to be something else than the stereotypically dense fighter, I just assign a 16 or 18 to one of those scores, and given how few rolls decide either explore or social, I instantly have a good shot of contributing. If I want more, then I'm okay with the realization I'm not looking for a Fighter.Anyway, my point is: any given game is free to offer a Rogue subclass that focuses extra on stealth or skills or whatever. Just as long as there remains a subclass that doesn't. If this latter subclass compensates light armor and few hp with devastating DPS I'm good. Whether those other subclasses trade in a little or a lot of that DPS for those other-pillar abilities doesn't concern me, as long as the option to pick awesome DPS remains. But neither 3E, PF or 5E delivers or comes even close, I'm afraid.So if by "classes should be designed to work well in each pillar" you mean that each class should represent a balanced choice if each pillar is viewed in isolation (so the explore abilities of any two classes is roughly similar), then I agree. Up to a point, since I remember the sameness that easily can befall D&D. (Honestly, I believe the balancing bit could focus on the combat pillar and everything will fall into place more or less by itself. If some classes do better in exploration, others in social, and some classes are for those only interested in the main course of combat, that's fine by me. And it's not just me. Every edition of D&D is working toward this direction. Every hero in D&D can fight, which is quite unlike characters of most other games. You can create a Scribe in WFRP that does not know which end of his sword to hold. You can create an Archeology Professor in Call of Cthulhu who can't even lace his own shoes. All those non-combat-focuses have been ruthlessly scrubbed out of D&D. The reason for that is clear to me: because D&D is a game of combat that also can be used for other things) But if by "classes should be designed to work well in each pillar" you mean that each class should contain some share of each pillar and what's important is that the sum adds up to 1, I don't agree, because none of us place a similar value on each pillar. Somebody might consider each pillar to be worth 1/3, someone else might consider one pillar twice as valuable as the other two combined.</blockquote>

Verification