Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9251540" data-attributes="member: 7030563">There are a few things to unpack here.First point&nbsp; buy is not universal and I believe 4d6d1 is the default method of doing ability scores.Second 5E classes are not balanced right now and 5.5 does not seem like it will be any more balanced.&nbsp; The difference between 5E and 1E is&nbsp; Rangers and Paladins (pre UA) were better from 1st level on in 1E.&nbsp; The only thing fighters had was faster leveling.&nbsp; In 5E balance is not constant.&nbsp; Classes that are really strong in tier 1 can be really weak in tier 3 or vice versa, so while there is wide imbalance at a given level, that imbalance is not consistent across all levels.To answer your question - no IMO classes do not need to be balanced.&nbsp; The current classes are not balanced and that has never caused any problems in 5E games I have played.On the other hand, most homebrew attempts to &quot;improve balance&quot; actually hurt the game and the fun for the players.&nbsp; These things to achieve better balance either make the game far worse and less fun for most players or they balance one area of the game or at one level range while causing a wildly larger imbalance in another area.Class balance changes dramatically with level.&nbsp; Because of this any attempt to balance the classes would need different mechanics at different levels, boosting them at some levels and nerfing at others.&nbsp; Example - buff the Monk by letting them make 2 unarmed strikes in tier 2, but then undo that and take move it back to one unarmed strike in tier 4 when they are the best non-caster.Finally you would have to restrict multiclassing to make any balance attempts work, otherwise players interested in optimizing will simply multiclass to cover their shortfalls.&nbsp; Again, taking away multiclassing or making it more difficult or restricted would make the game A LOT worse for many players as it would restrict what characters they can build.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ECMO3, post: 9251540, member: 7030563"] There are a few things to unpack here. First point buy is not universal and I believe 4d6d1 is the default method of doing ability scores. Second 5E classes are not balanced right now and 5.5 does not seem like it will be any more balanced. The difference between 5E and 1E is Rangers and Paladins (pre UA) were better from 1st level on in 1E. The only thing fighters had was faster leveling. In 5E balance is not constant. Classes that are really strong in tier 1 can be really weak in tier 3 or vice versa, so while there is wide imbalance at a given level, that imbalance is not consistent across all levels. To answer your question - no IMO classes do not need to be balanced. The current classes are not balanced and that has never caused any problems in 5E games I have played. On the other hand, most homebrew attempts to "improve balance" actually hurt the game and the fun for the players. These things to achieve better balance either make the game far worse and less fun for most players or they balance one area of the game or at one level range while causing a wildly larger imbalance in another area. Class balance changes dramatically with level. Because of this any attempt to balance the classes would need different mechanics at different levels, boosting them at some levels and nerfing at others. Example - buff the Monk by letting them make 2 unarmed strikes in tier 2, but then undo that and take move it back to one unarmed strike in tier 4 when they are the best non-caster. Finally you would have to restrict multiclassing to make any balance attempts work, otherwise players interested in optimizing will simply multiclass to cover their shortfalls. Again, taking away multiclassing or making it more difficult or restricted would make the game A LOT worse for many players as it would restrict what characters they can build. [/QUOTE]

Verification