Should there be balance between classes?

[Phoebus Alexandros]

Anzyr wrote:

The mechanics you have available and their power *do* define the amount of power you have as a character in a roleplaying game though. If you don't have a high Diplomacy score, you aren't very good at changing people's attitudes.

You're the one that determines how your character's Point Buy, Skill points, and Feats are distributed. Does anything preclude me, as the GM, from creating the BBEG Fighter that I've described over several posts? No.

Quote:

If you don't have a mechanic that lets you summon minions, you can't summon minions.

Do I need to be able to in order to have a good BBEG?

Quote:

If you don't have a good BAB you can't make a lot a of attacks. IF you don't have a pounce like ability you can't charge and attack multiple times.

What does that have to do with my example, though? Again, you seem to treat the BBEG as nothing more than the template of stats the characters will have to roll against. Maybe melee combat is the last thing you need to worry about where this guy is concerned.

Quote:

Therefore the character of the Fighter is ill suited to being a BBEG, because none of their characteristics contribute to being a good anything other then big dumb beatstick. And big dumb beatsticks aren't the people in charge of campaign ending encounters.

Look, no offense, but you're not using your imagination. You've reduced all possibilities for a "campaign ending encounter" to a straightforward fight, all of whose possibilities come down to available Feat combinations (or whatever).

[swoosh]

Phoebus Alexandros wrote:

As I offered earlier in this topic (or in a similar topic), if the ability to survive orbital falls (or jump ludicrously high, or whatever) is the design team's winking hint that player characters are superhuman, then that's just sadistic and in poor form on their part. I can think of far better ways for that kind of power to translate into the game. :)

Well they can also chop apart dragons, punch an elephant in half, wrestle dinosaurs, etc. etc.

Larger point being that if you're looking for "realistic" martials, the ship has already sailed by the time you're level 10 and probably earlier than that.

Other larger point being that wanting to play more mundane mundanes is fine, but that you shouldn't expect the game to operate that way at that higher tier of play.

Quote:

Look, no offense, but you're not using your imagination. You've reduced all possibilities for a "campaign ending encounter" to a straightforward fight, all of whose possibilities come down to available Feat combinations (or whatever).

We're talking abuot a straight fight because that's what the Fighter aspect of the BBEG brings to the table. Everything else you do with a BBEG is entirely independent of that.

If your BBEG lives in a floating castle that shoots lasers and is surrounded by a flock of dragons, awesome, but the "FIGHTER" part of the BBEG's character sheet has nothing to do with that, so it's not particularly relevant to the discussion of whether or not a fighter makes a good BBEG.

[Phoebus Alexandros]

Where this part of the conversation is about, I am fundamentally, philosophically opposed to the following:

Quote:

... but the "FIGHTER" part of the BBEG's character sheet has nothing to do with that, so it's not particularly relevant to the discussion of whether or not a fighter makes a good BBEG.

I can't emphasize this enough: to me, a BBEG - as with any other NPC - is a character.

Some characters are straightforward. They are exactly as advertised. Errol Flynn's characters, for instance, are swashbucklers, period. Other characters are more nuanced or less straightforward. Odysseus isn't a Rogue or a Bard. He's a very clever Fighter who is versed in a variety of weapons, is considered an exceptional diplomat, is renowned for his ability at deception, and has also sunk a lot of points in profession: sailor.

[Liz Courts]

Locking thread.