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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6006933" data-attributes="member: 87792">Scratch that.  The current playtest has the Warlock class - the ability to turn etherial and walk through walls for two rounds twice an encounter is spectacularly powerful.  As is the ability to create ten pints of oil.  Both at first level.  No one is safe from arson! At least it's better than the previous playtest which was "balanced" such that the cleric with one first level spell that lasted for an hour was as good a fighter as the fighter.  Only once we get past the risible balance issues can we even start to see how the mechanics are balanced.  I have to say that if that is accepted as a fair assessment (and it has been) then I agree with the scepticism.  Fighty McFighter's skills with a sword aren't going to be as useful in a game of political intrigue or a detective game as Scry McDiviner the Wizard or Rapit Stolenname the rogue.  But 3e is an unbalanced ruleset.  Period.  This is because even if the game is pure combat, Fighty McFighter is still not able to keep up with the Godbotherer, or even under most circumstances the wizard.  And you can forget about keeping up with the Aggressively Hegmonizing Ursine Swarm a.k.a. the bear druid, his bear companion, and his summoned bears (who also happens to have other spells - and more skill points and more useful skills than the fighter.  Even where he is supposed to shine.  For that matter Rapit Stolenname is supposed to be the specialist burglar - but if you want to case then rob a joint you still hire Scry McDiviner as he can do the job better.  The 2e fighter was the best there was at fighting.  2e Weapon Specialisation rocked - and they were the only class to get extra attacks at high level (OK, so the fighter variants did too).  And by the time they actually started being hit by spells they had the best saves around (as opposed to the 3.X fighter who arguably has the worst).  It wasn't.  4e is a d20 game. On the other hand to have a chance at balance in 3.X, you'd IMO need to either completely re-write or throw out the following classes:Wizard, Cleric, Druid, SorcerorFighter, Monk, Paladin. The Bard's just about fine as is, and the Rogue and Ranger need only slight buffs.  The Barbarian can work by a few tweaks and replacing his rage with the much more metal ones from 4e.  Your sense is ... incorrect in my experience.  Although strength is the normal dump stat for wizards IME.  But whenever I see a wizard with a fully maxed int, I see a glass cannon that's not going to be that useful overall.</blockquote>

Verification