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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5886894" data-attributes="member: 996">"All the players who prefer martial archetypes can hope for..."  Better?And the classes of people who play those classes of characters.   It's a game balance issue.  If people are playing wizards, or self-buffing clerics, or Druids in animal form, instead of fighters because those builds are strictly superior to the fighter, then that's a balance problem.  A sign of players coping with a poorly designed game.  There are many possible solutions.  For instance, the game could simply delete inferior classes as PC options.  Or it could present them in a more balanced fashion, like 4e did.  As long as whatever classes are presented are balanced, the game is functional.  Game balance does share some parallels with ethics, though, so it's not a bad metaphor.  Not one that I was using, at least not intentionally, this time, but a fair one.If you like the idea of player characters that can be either martial or magical, then you'd want a game where both sorts are viable: a balanced game.  If you just want mundane to contrast with the superior feats and abilities of those with magic - in a 'Harry Potter' sort of universe, for instance, or M:tA or Ars Magica for RPG instances - then there's no need for mundane to be PCs, there are more than enough muggle NPCs to provide the contrast.Heroic fantasy.  The PCs in 4e - all of them - are heroes in a fantasy setting.  Not sidekicks or magic item caddies or healbots or meatshields.  Freak'n heroes who actually make a difference when they pull out the stops and do something heroic.</blockquote>

Verification