NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6240443" data-attributes="member: 17106">CRs were, and they remain, a bad idea. Fortunately an easily ignored one.I agree with you. It looks better on paper than it is because of its limitations. It really needs the full BAB, and maybe some other rethinking. They loaded it down with powers to the point where it feels like a really good class, but in actual play it isn't, mostly because of stuff that isn't readily apparent on a class table (MAD, items, etc.).I never liked SA, but yes the rogue is a bit stretched on skills (as are all the classes, with rogues it matters more).And, in essence I agree with that. The lack of medium saving throws and assigning only one good save to most martial classes was a bad decision. I also agree that the dead levels start to add up and that there isn't nearly enough incentive to play the class to high levels (even though I've seen it done successfully). In practice, this is papered over by multiclassing; yes there isn't much reason to take beyond 4 levels of fighter, but since you don't have to, people just take a prestige class soon after.No, this is not ideal, and yes, the fighter needs both better defensive numbers and abilities to fill in the dead levels that are good enough to keep the class viable for all twenty levels.Even this I only kind of disagree with. The saving throws for divine characters are undeservedly good, it is too easy to acquire too many different spells. Magic item creation is a theoretical problem that requires the PCs to have a lot of time, but I could imagine it going wrong. And there is definitely more there in the rarified air of high levels for the magical characters, perhaps too much.And you know what, the funny thing is I even kind of agree with this.However, I draw different conclusions. One, is that the effort to create balance is self-defeating. The problem with 3e (or 4e) isn't that it's too balanced, it's that someone tried to balance it unnecessarily, and the law of unintended consequences came into play.Two, is that a lot of the problems I read aren't really balance issues between classes, it's simply a question of one class not being right within itself. For example, saves. It's not right that a hardened warrior has poor will saves. They should be fearless and tough (and perhaps fast as well, the poor ref seems to assume some lumbering hulk that can't get out of the way of danger). It's also not right that a cleric has good fort and will saves. Why are they so special? Does being devoted make you more resilient? I would think the opposite. The comparison between those classes looks unfavorable as a result, but the reason it's wrong is not because cleric>fighter, it's because neither class's save mechanics appropriately represent the concept. Saves, as implemented, aren't nuanced enough or flexible enough, and often give the wrong bonuses to the wrong people.Similarly, the issues with magic are internal. You're channeling mysterious power that you have no control over. Why does it work without a die roll? Why do you have such a free range of choices? Shouldn't your god pick your spells for you? Or at least you have to do some work and meet some prerequisites in order to cast a spell.The thing is, one could completely and thoroughly fix all of the issues you described above, which by and large I agree with and even sometimes felt the need to revise for, but you'd still have fundamentally different characters that aren't equal with each other on a one-on-one basis. A fighter with a tough mind, a new parrying mechanic, and some cool attack effects or something, and a sorcerer whose spells blow up in his face now and then and who gets tired after the first few, are still very different. They're just different and better designed.</blockquote>

Verification