Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Quelathus 02-25-05, 05:40 AM	When I first started playing D7D I was told the following because I wanted to be a wizard (this was in 2e): >Wizards start of weak but they become the most powerful. >Fighter start of most powerful but get progressivley worse. When I read a post about fighters being underpowered someone said, "fighters get too weak as they progress in levels". Now I dont think class ideals have changes in 3e or 3.5e, fighters are supposed to get weaker, if they didnt then why not just be a fighter you could kick but at every level. I also read a post about wizards, someone said they die to easily, and they suck in the begining. once again I was wondering if they understood the basic class concept. The biggest thing though was someone saying that even high level wizards have a hard time, ever hear of a mixed party? the high level wizard is supposed to weaken enemies so that the fighter who isnt as strong as before but is perfectly fine can then dispose of the enemies. As for the other races I never cared to learn about their ideals, but I assume the cleric was supposed to be the all around class, never extremley powerful at casting (though still powerful) and never extremely good at fighting (though they could enter the fray). I dont know, maybe things changed but thats how I saw it and I hate seeing these people complain. Note: if you still disagree theres a thing called a DM, find one who agrees and he can change the rules.....
Lina_Inverse 02-25-05, 08:34 AM	so clerics are druids are supposed to be the best at every level? fighters are supposed to be the worst warrior type in the game?strictly inferior to the cleric in his own field? although people say that,its never worked that way. in Basic Fighters/wizards ruled. in 1E rangers/paladins/calviers ruled. in 2E bards/fighters/clerics ruled in 3E cleric/druids/wizards rule. no edition of D&D was ever balenced.doesnt mean were not gonna complain untill it is. oh and just so you know,clerics fight better than fighters and cast as good as wizards.play them a bit.
NineInchNall 02-25-05, 08:59 AM	Why does it really matter? Can't we just drop all the balance discussions and enjoy the games as they are? Seriously, guys. I mean, it's not like anyone's day has ever been ruined because the cleric and fighter jointly beat up on things, and neither has anyone's game been less fun because the wizard managed to kill an entire roomful of enemies in one round. These are just elements of the D&D world. This is a role playing game; some roles are inherently more "powerful" than others: it comes with the territory. It's not like this is Diablo 2 or something. If, on the other hand, having a member of a specific class in one's party makes it so that no one else gets to do anything, then there's a problem. Otherwise, can't we all just have some fun?
Quelathus 02-25-05, 09:58 AM	Why does it really matter? Can't we just drop all the balance discussions and enjoy the games as they are? Seriously, guys. I mean, it's not like anyone's day has ever been ruined because the cleric and fighter jointly beat up on things, and neither has anyone's game been less fun because the wizard managed to kill an entire roomful of enemies in one round. These are just elements of the D&D world. This is a role playing game; some roles are inherently more "powerful" than others: it comes with the territory. It's not like this is Diablo 2 or something. If, on the other hand, having a member of a specific class in one's party makes it so that no one else gets to do anything, then there's a problem. Otherwise, can't we all just have some fun? Thats all I want, I hate the balance discussions, hence my note, if you have a problem just change it.
Lord Schpungus 02-25-05, 01:31 PM	Why does it really matter? Can't we just drop all the balance discussions and enjoy the games as they are? Seriously, guys. I mean, it's not like anyone's day has ever been ruined because the cleric and fighter jointly beat up on things, and neither has anyone's game been less fun because the wizard managed to kill an entire roomful of enemies in one round. These are just elements of the D&D world. This is a role playing game; some roles are inherently more "powerful" than others: it comes with the territory. It's not like this is Diablo 2 or something. If, on the other hand, having a member of a specific class in one's party makes it so that no one else gets to do anything, then there's a problem. Otherwise, can't we all just have some fun? I know I'm not having fun at 13th level when my fighter is standing in front of the bad guy, hacking away, and poof, there goes the wizard's spell and takes him out. Then I have to move to another enemy, and then the wizard's spell takes him out, too. A fighter's only granted role is whacking at a meat object, and sometimes that's not enough.
Quelathus 02-25-05, 02:29 PM	I know I'm not having fun at 13th level when my fighter is standing in front of the bad guy, hacking away, and poof, there goes the wizard's spell and takes him out. Then I have to move to another enemy, and then the wizard's spell takes him out, too. A fighter's only granted role is whacking at a meat object, and sometimes that's not enough. :) how does the wizard feel when he has to hide behind a tree at level 1, and you kill all 6 goblins :). lol
Nuntius128 02-25-05, 02:43 PM	Balance is hardly something that ought to be discussed as often as it does. Regardless of how many class abilities one may have over another, I can make a Wizard that's stronger than a Cleric made by some of my fellow adventurers almost any day, or a Fighter that's stronger than a Monk or Barbarian, as, really, everything lies in ability scores and the character build, not "class balance."