Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6252318" data-attributes="member: 22779">Yup, mages are weak.&nbsp; Then again, my specialist wizard gets 2 spells per day at 1st level, and sleep is still largely an autowin spell for a single encounter.&nbsp; Thieves?&nbsp; Oh, yeah, thieves suck.&nbsp; Then again, everyone knew thieves sucked, so they played multiclass fighter/thief or wizard/thief or cleric/thief on the realization that the level limits would almost never come up in game and the xp difference was so small that you essentially weren't giving up anything by adding a thief class onto your character.But, again, this gets to my point about balance.&nbsp; Unbalance means that a given option is clearly better than other options.&nbsp; Single classed thief was pretty clearly less strong than multiclass thief and you gave up nothing.&nbsp; Longswords were by and far the best single handed weapon.&nbsp; So, everyone who could used a longsword.&nbsp; I rarely if ever saw single classed thieves.&nbsp; Same goes for two weapon fighting.&nbsp; When something is unbalanced, it leads to cookie cutter characters.Which is why I don't worry too much about unbalance in 3e because we rarely played at the levels where it mattered.&nbsp; If you only play to, say, 9th or 10th level in 3e, almost all the balance issues go away.&nbsp; Fighters and rogues are perfectly viable up to those levels.&nbsp; The casters aren't really ruling anything until the very end.&nbsp; E6 is 6 levels for a reason.&nbsp; I saw far, far more variety in character concepts in 3e than I ever saw in 2e.&nbsp; And I mainly attribute that to the fact that 3e is much more mechanically balanced (at least in the single digit levels) than 2e is.&nbsp; Again, in 3e, nobody bitches about a 5th level wizard.&nbsp; It's not a problem.&nbsp; I do believe that most 3e campaigns rarely saw double digit levels.&nbsp; There were far, far more single digit level games out there.&nbsp; Same for 2e.&nbsp; Only thing is, in 2e, you could unbalance the game right out of the chute.But,What super maxed out?&nbsp; I have an 18 str fighter.&nbsp; That's pretty much par for the course.&nbsp; I took weapon specs (again, standard for any fighter) and two weapon fighting (which reduces the penalties for twf - again, pretty standard choices).&nbsp; What super maxing out have I done here?&nbsp; Placing my highest roll in strength?&nbsp; Making perfectly reasonable choices in chargen?&nbsp; (I'm a fighter, shouldn't I be taking stuff that helps me fight?&nbsp; What else are weapon proficiencies for?)It's not like I've cross referenced three different splats and taken some weird off race from Dragon magazine.&nbsp; I'm using the PHB and a single splat that most people agree is perfectly fine for the game.You want super maxed out?&nbsp; Let me break out my Faiths and Avatars or Dieties and Demigods and I'll really go to town. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; This?&nbsp; This is a bog standard fighter in 2e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6252318, member: 22779"] Yup, mages are weak. Then again, my specialist wizard gets 2 spells per day at 1st level, and sleep is still largely an autowin spell for a single encounter. Thieves? Oh, yeah, thieves suck. Then again, everyone knew thieves sucked, so they played multiclass fighter/thief or wizard/thief or cleric/thief on the realization that the level limits would almost never come up in game and the xp difference was so small that you essentially weren't giving up anything by adding a thief class onto your character. But, again, this gets to my point about balance. Unbalance means that a given option is clearly better than other options. Single classed thief was pretty clearly less strong than multiclass thief and you gave up nothing. Longswords were by and far the best single handed weapon. So, everyone who could used a longsword. I rarely if ever saw single classed thieves. Same goes for two weapon fighting. When something is unbalanced, it leads to cookie cutter characters. Which is why I don't worry too much about unbalance in 3e because we rarely played at the levels where it mattered. If you only play to, say, 9th or 10th level in 3e, almost all the balance issues go away. Fighters and rogues are perfectly viable up to those levels. The casters aren't really ruling anything until the very end. E6 is 6 levels for a reason. I saw far, far more variety in character concepts in 3e than I ever saw in 2e. And I mainly attribute that to the fact that 3e is much more mechanically balanced (at least in the single digit levels) than 2e is. Again, in 3e, nobody bitches about a 5th level wizard. It's not a problem. I do believe that most 3e campaigns rarely saw double digit levels. There were far, far more single digit level games out there. Same for 2e. Only thing is, in 2e, you could unbalance the game right out of the chute. But, What super maxed out? I have an 18 str fighter. That's pretty much par for the course. I took weapon specs (again, standard for any fighter) and two weapon fighting (which reduces the penalties for twf - again, pretty standard choices). What super maxing out have I done here? Placing my highest roll in strength? Making perfectly reasonable choices in chargen? (I'm a fighter, shouldn't I be taking stuff that helps me fight? What else are weapon proficiencies for?) It's not like I've cross referenced three different splats and taken some weird off race from Dragon magazine. I'm using the PHB and a single splat that most people agree is perfectly fine for the game. You want super maxed out? Let me break out my Faiths and Avatars or Dieties and Demigods and I'll really go to town. :D This? This is a bog standard fighter in 2e. [/QUOTE]

Verification