Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4186749" data-attributes="member: 5143">I'm more saying that the solutions to problems should be equally possible with only a slight advantage for one class over another.If the fighter has to roll 10+ in order to make his strength check to push a boulder down a hill then the wizard should have either the same chance or slightly better or worse.  He shouldn't be able to cast a spell that instantly succeeds.  He shouldn't have a chance so low that he'll never succeed, even on a 20.Right now, the current philosophy says that wizards should be able to succeed on almost anything without rolling because magic can solve all problems.  The balance in 3e is supposed to be "You have to sacrifice combat power to get these benefits and you can only use them limited times per day."Since all classes are balanced in combat in 4e, you can't give wizards any non-combat benefits that simply succeed because they are magic without giving the same benefits to the other classes.I'm saying that one advantage should be balanced against an equal powered advantage in another class.  So, if the fighter can climb the wall really well and the wizard can identify the powers of monsters really well they are about equal powered advantages with 2 different flavors.  Balancing the ability to climb well with the ability to create a floating castle is not equal powered.I'm saying that having a spell which says "Opens all doors" is an advantage over a skill which says "You might be able to open a door if you roll high enough, a bunch of doors will be too hard for you."  It also means that rogues no longer have an advantage from taking that skill.I'm saying that ability is balanced because it has a chance of failing and it can be acquired by all classes.  If there is an enemy who is really good at spotting the rogue, he loses the benefit.  Just like even a wizard can get the benefit against someone with a very poor spot check.Compare that directly to rope trick that can only be foiled by: Spellcasters who have the appropriate spells and have cast them at the exact moment the trick has been attempted.I'm saying that low hitpoints are canceled out by spells that make you invisible, increase your ac, make you fly, and long ranged artillery spells.  The entire fact that you can protect yourself well enough to make the low hitpoints insignificant IS the balance.  So adding anything more on top of that is simply advantages with no counterbalance.Not really.  Frankly, if the wizard has a spell that says that it sticks all enemies in a 20 foot radius to the ground I'm disinclined to spend my brainpower coming up with a grand plan where I find the perfect location, get a net and suspend it from the ceiling, rig a trigger mechanism, and plan an ambush.  Instead the plan becomes: "When we see the enemies, the wizard sticks them to the ground."  It's not that we refuse to think, it's that magic is much easier.True, but this isn't exactly a case of the rogue's non combat skills being just as powerful as a wizard's spells.  This is just a poorly designed monster being beaten easily.To me, a challenge should be a challenge.  It shouldn't be easily bypassed with a simple application of one of your powers.  Being creative should be rewarded...with advantages.  It shouldn't be rewarded with an immediate win.</blockquote>

Verification