Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9363173" data-attributes="member: 6877472">No I get what you're saying.&nbsp; But if I'm a game designer, I can't say &quot;ok, every class has 4 points.&nbsp; If a class has 3 points in combat, it gets one point in exploration and 0 points in interaction&quot; because I don't know how useful any of those categories is going to be.OTOH, I can guess that combat is probably going to be a major aspect of most D&amp;D games, and therefore by making each class roughly the same in combat ability, I know they'll always be useful at the thing they're most likely going to be doing.The flipside is, if the Fighter is the best at combat, and that does turn out to be a huge chunk of the play experience, then I have to put a warning label on the Rogue to tell people who like that archetype to check with their DM's before playing.Ideally, what I'd do is give each class a different advantage in combat.&nbsp; The Rogue might be best at avoiding danger.&nbsp; The Fighter is best at sustained damage.&nbsp; The Barbarian is the best at burst damage. The Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock is best at status effects and AoE.&nbsp; The Paladin and Cleric are best at dealing with supernatural threats like undead or fiends, and have the best recovery abilities.Which is kind of how things work now, but there's a lot of overlap.&nbsp; Like I don't really know why Rage gives you resistance to damage.&nbsp; It seems kind of the opposite of what I'd expect a Barbarian to be great at, and they aren't the class I'd make the &quot;mitigation specialist&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9363173, member: 6877472"] No I get what you're saying. But if I'm a game designer, I can't say "ok, every class has 4 points. If a class has 3 points in combat, it gets one point in exploration and 0 points in interaction" because I don't know how useful any of those categories is going to be. OTOH, I can guess that combat is probably going to be a major aspect of most D&D games, and therefore by making each class roughly the same in combat ability, I know they'll always be useful at the thing they're most likely going to be doing. The flipside is, if the Fighter is the best at combat, and that does turn out to be a huge chunk of the play experience, then I have to put a warning label on the Rogue to tell people who like that archetype to check with their DM's before playing. Ideally, what I'd do is give each class a different advantage in combat. The Rogue might be best at avoiding danger. The Fighter is best at sustained damage. The Barbarian is the best at burst damage. The Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock is best at status effects and AoE. The Paladin and Cleric are best at dealing with supernatural threats like undead or fiends, and have the best recovery abilities. Which is kind of how things work now, but there's a lot of overlap. Like I don't really know why Rage gives you resistance to damage. It seems kind of the opposite of what I'd expect a Barbarian to be great at, and they aren't the class I'd make the "mitigation specialist". [/QUOTE]

Verification