Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 5896111" data-attributes="member: 7635">There is a few issues to consider when "balance" is addressed...1.) Niche protection. Quite simply; fighters are the best at fighting, thieves at sneaking, clerics and healing, wizards at nuking and stuff. If the proper spell selection or feat combo makes a wizard into a better thief or a cleric into a better fighter, you've got issues. 2.) "Subclasses" shouldn't strictly be better, just different.A paladin shouldn't be "fighter + X". Nor should an assassin be a "thief + X". If the core classes are done well, then a ranger, barbarian, warlord, etc should be on par, not better, than the default four. 3.) Everyone needs something to do. Boredom sets in when a character can't do something for an extended period of time. Fighters should be able to be keen observants and survivalists along with fighting. Rogues need to be able to hit in combat so they don't sit around useless through long fights. Just because your awesome at one thing doesn't mean you need to be useless elsewhere.4.) Equality is worse than inequality. 4e failed IMHO by giving everyone roughly similar to-hit numbers, roughly the same amount of powers per day, roughly equal AC and Defenses, and roughly equal advancement. It made the classes roughly equal, and thus roughly forgettable. Classes need some inequality to create interest, and in a choice between samey and balance and unbalanced but fun, I'll take the latter.</blockquote>

Verification