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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7211049" data-attributes="member: 37579">But perfect balance is impossible. The closest you can get is rock paper scissors, and it's still possible to win more than theoretically possible. And D&D is ridiculously more complicated than Roschambo...There will ALWAYS be class that are weaker and classes that are stronger. And changing the balance just moves other classes to the top and other classes become the bottom.But aren't you always advocating that it's hard to challenge players already? How is making other classes OP a solution?And, again, whenever you move a class up the rankings, there's another class on the bottom. And very often "balance" is subjective, and there's going to be disagreements. Pathfinder is STILL tweaking the balance. Ultimate Intrigue, the sixth or seventh large player hardcover, was focused on "fixing" certain weaker builds. And there are many, many more smaller books on sub-builds and concepts. It's never ending.There's a compromise. Where they look at how happy and unhappy people are with the classes and see if any really jump out. Look for anomalies. And then fix any classes that really jump out. Which they're doing. With the ranger. They don't need to keep doing it with classes that tested well. We don't need errata designed to "fix" classes and invalidating physical books. We don't need endless revisionary classes. We don't need classes that fill an existing role but are "rebalanced". We don't need math fix feats or class fix feats. And we probably don't need mandatory spells that have to be taken to "fix" a class, because then people will just complain about spell taxes or the loss of flexibility.</blockquote>

Verification