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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hanez" data-source="post: 5902747" data-attributes="member: 82160">Well theres a few reasons I am putting in restrictions and it depends exactly on what we are testing.First off, I commonly see on these boards that the fighter is the  servant of the wizard, so the wizard is a good test case to prove whether or not thats true. You happened to mention 6th level, which I believe the fighter would dominate at in most circumstances, the wizard would probably start gaining an edge at higher levels > 12 or so.   But if we tested it as you said, with multiple at level encounters, with healing in between encounters but NO resource replinishment I believe the fighter would be on par or have the advantage (itd be close over 20 levels).   Secondly, we often see on these boards is that the fighter is the servant to magic users, as if ALL the magic users are better then the fighter.  As if the at will fighter and any Vancian/daily magic user could never be balanced (we heard this specifically with the launch of 4e).  So to test whether thats true or not, we need to find just one vancian class that would be balanced, not every class has to be balanced to test this assertion.For me the question ISNT "is the fighter equal to the druid in 3.x?".    The question I am most concerned with  is "can we make a game with atwill type martial types and vancian style magic users that preserves most of D&Ds sacred cows and is relatively balanced?"    I believe the answer is yes because I have DMd that game, sure with some houserules but nothing major.The 3rd edition druid shapechange had holes in it.  It needed to be patched (and was in pathfinder but I don't know how well), so its not a good test case.  This fault can be fixed in two ways:1 - the problems can be fixed, patched, refined, updated etc. Plenty of minor and some major modifications to make classes closer to balanced2 - we can ditch the entire system and make a whole new game with classes that are much closer in similarity to eachother and slap the D&D name on it.4e took option 2 and I as well as many others believe it was the wrong choice.  My argument here is that option 1 is doable, sure there were imbalances in 3e, but they werent that bad, they werent on the level of the fighter being a candle holder for the average player.  Sure this happened sometimes, it might of happened in your experience, but I would argue it was either with specific optimized builds that can be fixed, or the game was run by bad DMs.  And most importantly the problems are easily FIXABLE.  They were fixable in 3e by competent DMs, and players that werent jerks, fixable with simple houserules, encounters that challenge ALL classes and the occasional directed magic item to bump up a player lagging behind and I have no doubt that they can and will be fixed in 5e.</blockquote>

Verification