Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5918406" data-attributes="member: 87792">Balance is needed to ensure that each role fills a niche in the party.&nbsp; Without balance this doesn't happen.&nbsp; The 1e and 3e monks don't fill any roles.&nbsp; The pre-UA 1e cleric and the 3.5 cleric on the other hand just about fill the fighter role and their own (especially with divine metamagic and nightsticks).&nbsp; And the 3.5 druid fills the cleric role and the fighter role while eating into wizard and occasionally rogue role.&nbsp; (Mid-high level 3.5 wizards eat the rogue role wtih second and third level spells while being wizards with their high level ones).&nbsp;Without balance you don't have niche protection.&nbsp; Without niche protection you end up with classes without niches.&nbsp; With classes without niches you have classes that don't fill a vital role or even a terribly useful one for the party.&nbsp;Pro-balance people don't think that roles should be taken away to promote balance.&nbsp; We think that with bad balance your intended role means diddly squat as a more powerful class can cover it and their own.&nbsp; And with bad enough balance they can do it without intending to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5918406, member: 87792"] Balance is [I]needed[/I] to ensure that each role fills a niche in the party. Without balance this doesn't happen. The 1e and 3e monks don't fill [I]any[/I] roles. The pre-UA 1e cleric and the 3.5 cleric on the other hand just about fill the fighter role [I]and[/I] their own (especially with divine metamagic and nightsticks). And the 3.5 druid fills the cleric role [I]and[/I] the fighter role while eating into wizard and occasionally rogue role. (Mid-high level 3.5 wizards eat the rogue role wtih second and third level spells while being wizards with their high level ones). Without balance you don't have niche protection. Without niche protection you end up with classes without niches. With classes without niches you have classes that don't fill a vital role or even a terribly useful one for the party. Pro-balance people don't think that roles should be taken away to promote balance. We think that with bad balance your intended role means diddly squat as a more powerful class can cover it and their own. And with bad [I]enough[/I] balance they can do it without intending to. [/QUOTE]

Verification