I see a lot of talk about power increase. How about power balance? I think it's been established that Clerics, Druids, and high level Wizards pretty much make everyone else feel inferior. I think it's sad that I can make a cleric that is technically a better Fighter than the Fighter class itself. I'm talking with core books also, not splatting it up. Also there is very little point in playing a Paladin in 3.5. Why not just play a Lawful Good Cleric? It gives you the same flavor with full access to divine spells.
I think the powerful classes in 3.5 need to be pretty much left alone. How do you guys feel?
Also does anyone else feel that Wizard's having a low hit die is a good thing? I do, it makes their massive power at the end feel like a real payout for the struggle you face in the beginning. It also makes up a little bit for the almost impossible to balance nature of the class (the versatility and raw power of their high level spells).
Because of the "normal lifespan" of the average game (12-15th level, usually) the theory of big payoff at end justifies harsh start is flawed, because the average gamer never reaches the big payoff.
In all my 3rd edition time, I have only had one character make it to 20th, and that was because it was the Age of Worms AP. Most other campaigns I've participated in finished at around 15th level, plotwise.
I'm not disagreeing with your premise, just stating my opinion that one part of your logic is flawed. You may agree to disagree, if so desired.
|
I see a lot of talk about power increase. How about power balance? I think it's been established that Clerics, Druids, and high level Wizards pretty much make everyone else feel inferior. I think it's sad that I can make a cleric that is technically a better Fighter than the Fighter class itself. I'm talking with core books also, not splatting it up. Also there is very little point in playing a Paladin in 3.5. Why not just play a Lawful Good Cleric? It gives you the same flavor with full access to divine spells.
I think the powerful classes in 3.5 need to be pretty much left alone. How do you guys feel?
Also does anyone else feel that Wizard's having a low hit die is a good thing? I do, it makes their massive power at the end feel like a real payout for the struggle you face in the beginning. It also makes up a little bit for the almost impossible to balance nature of the class (the versatility and raw power of their high level spells).
I agree, too many want it to easy and too many seem to have combat as the only part of the game. IMHO.
It's not just at high levels that cleric, druids, sorcerers, and wizards out-shine the fighter. In fact, because of anti-magic, elemental restistances, immunities, and spell resistances, fighters actually regain a lot of parity with spellcasters in high-level play. The power gap during mid-level play is effectively worse.
A 6th level cleric that casts divine favor, shield of faith, aid, and bull's strength can outfight a 6th level fighter (this only gets worse at 7th level with divine power). If the cleric has Scribe Scroll, they don't even have to use their spell slots (at the cost of only 175 gp and 14 exp to create the scrolls). A 6th level druid can wild shape into a black bear for combat or an eagle to escape and cast barkskin, bull's strength, entangle, faerie fire, heat metal, and summon swarm; plus their animal companion is still an effective combatant (which is usually not the case in high-level play). A 6th level sorcerer can cast three 6d6 fireballs or lightning bolts; a 6th level wizard can only cast two, but can know both (along with dispel magic and other spells), choosing the most effective when preparing spells for the day. Also, there are few opponents at this level that have comprehensive resistances and immunities.
I see a lot of talk about power increase. How about power balance?
I don't know why everybody wants on-the-point balance. I think as long as things are roughly balanced, as long as everyone has fun, and as long as everybody has to do something useful, its ok. Is in real life everything balanced?
|
|
I see a lot of talk about power increase. How about power balance?I don't know why everybody wants on-the-point balance. I think as long as things are roughly balanced, as long as everyone has fun, and as long as everybody has to do something useful, its ok. Is in real life everything balanced?
Personally I don't think real life is relevant. We want balance because otherwise you get two problems.
Firstly if the game is unbalanced, say certain classes are better than others, then you get a very bad power gaming situation very easily which leaves certain characters out.
If you unbalance versus previous game versions, all of your old material becomes less useful, potentially useless. Even old Paizo stuff. The goblin challenge in PF1 is a lot easier with PFRPG character powers. There's a large number of 3.5 players who want to use up their old stuff and integrate it with the new. This ability is what I underdstood to be one of the underlying philosophies of Pathfinder RPG was.
Lewis.
With three rounds of preparation, the cleric can enspell themselves to outshine the fighter. In three rounds the fighter's mowed down the rest of your party and you're facing MORE than just the fighter. And frankly, if you want to talk preparation, how long is your hypothetical cleric going to last against the equal level thief attacking him in his pajamas with a sneak attack wake-up call, followed by the thief gaining initiative? Is the fighter going to be any better?
Each class has its own way to shine. Does this mean the fighter can kill EVERYTHING solo? Nope. Does a fireball solve all problems? Nope. Is rebuke living the best tactical solution? Nope. Turn undead? Nope. Is stealth and ambush always the right solution? Nope.
Each character class has its own situation where it works best, which doesn't mean that other characters can't fill in nicely for a missing party member. It also doesn't mean that a 'default' character of one class can't be momentarily outshone by another character of a different class.
Who does the better job nurturing the faithful, a cleric or a rogue with social skills? What about a bard? The point is you've used a LOT of your power to outshine the fighter for however long your spells last. The fighter has their power level ALL THE TIME, and no matter what you do as a cleric, the fighter will always have more feats than you. Not sure how the fighter turns that to their advantage, but I'm thinking there's a way.