When we create a char we start as lv1 char as one of the classes.

Does the game assume we had months or years of training before becoming a lv1 char?

A lv1 fighter is profient with martial weapons and heavy armor, a mage can read magic scrolls and so on. I guess it takes some time and effort to learn this and the average farmer or merchant will never learn this.
Maybe with the exception of sorcerers (who have literally magic in their blood) does the game assume you had a trainer, you were trained in a temple or something similar and does your relationship to that trainer (in a broader sense) play an important role in the game?

This question is more about DnD in general, not specific to this game.

Unlike what a lot of people seem to assume, yes. A level 1 character is, comparatively, very strong and well-trained. You're very skilled at multiple skills and forms of combat even at level 1.

Depends. Wizards yes, rogues and fighters (or sorcerers) not really.
In 3E different classes had different minumum ages for PCs, indicating their training

Yep - in fact the game also includes varied starting ages. From 3.5e, on page 109 of the Player's handbook, is a list of starting ages based on race and class. It doesn't translate well here from a copy and paste method, but humans have a base starting age of 15. Barbarians, rogues, and sorcerors add 1d4 years to get to level 1; bards, fighters, paladins, and rangers add 1d6 years; clerics, druids, monks, and wizards add 2d6 years - this represents their training in their roles. The DM Guide then adds classes not meant for player characters since they aren't fighting classes or are nerfed: adepts are tribal societies' versions of wizards and clerics, aristocrats are your spoiled nobles and specialize in educated skills, commoners are your regular Joe Peasant who goes around toiling, and experts are your craftsmen who have a bunch of skill points in crafting skills and such. Like everything else, this isn't explicitly forbidden for player characters - but they probably don't want to be the blacksmith out to find the kid napped by kobolds and so the classes aren't meant for them - but meant for fighting mobs and the like. Just watch out for the +3 pitchfork of magic missiles.

That's 3.5 anyway and I'm not sure how much 5e dumbed it down, but the basic concept would be unchanged.

Not fighter or rogues? A rogue supposedly has skills in picpocketing and lockpicking (not to talk about stealth and backstab) that requires experience to master, a lot of it. Fighters can use all weapons, swords, maces, bow, shortbows, spears and so on how can do that without training? Even when wars explode and states force enlist to increase their army the new recruits go through (even if fast) training.

Fighters are proficient in fighting with literally every commonly used weapon, and can use them in any kind of armor. That's a lot of skill that requires a lot of training.

1d6 years of training.

@Madscientist, yes, a level 1 character is more than an ordinary person in society with respect to their training and experience in whatever class they gain that first level. However, the exact amount of those experiences can vary somewhat, from game to game and from class to class. And those experiences are what you are supposed to write up in your character background for your DM in a PnP game, at least it was in all games I was in or which I ran. This has been true across all D&D editions. I started playing with 2e some 25+ years ago.

Level 1 characters are not ordinary farmers. When you're level 1 it is assumed that you have years of training (fighters, rogues) or study (casters).
Though it is assumed that spellcasters are supposed to be older at level 1 than martial classes. A level 1 human wizard will be in his 30s.

Thank you very much.

This leads to another question:
If I start as fighter and multi class to mage, does it mean the DM says: "OK, you go to a temple and train there for 3 years." In the meantime the other single class characters continue the adventure, gain many levels and maybe even finish the whole story.

Most GMs simply ignore training, as it would halt the game. Is like a quality of life improvement in a video game, even if it doesn't make sense.
For example playing a table for one year and reaching level 20 with a caster is nonsensical lorewise. Level 20 casters from the lore like Blackstaff and Elminster are centuries old, even in BG level 10 wizards will be very old.

As I love quoting it:


Literally everything depends on the DM who can adapt anything they want, so saying most DMs ignoring it is meaningless, but technically the character is going through some sort of training to be able to get it. However, this training isn't as intense as the initial training.

If you are a rogue, perhaps you started developing your abilities around 7-8-9 years old throughout your teenagers years, stealing food at the marketplace . You might also have followed or force to follow a street gang. Knives are easy to hide and carry while you are running away.

If you are a fighter, perhaps you have followed a role model during your teenagers time and practice with the sword (GoT Aria practicing with the sword her brother gave her). Although I would see Aria as rogue/fighter. What you think ?

-S

That is not at all in line with Dungeons and Dragons. Now, 5e did reduce Rogues to just petty thieves as seen in the difference between the editions:



However, it still doesn't follow that they are commonly orphan children who are making their living as petty thieves before they even hit puberty. Most would be starting in adulthood just the same.

Though, this does give rise to the fact that Astarion as a rogue just doesn't work in 5e because 5e oversimplified things wildly - though he would be an ideal rogue in 3.5e.

I would say that the backend story, prior to level 1, is really up to you (and perhaps with the DM's help). There are so many permutations that can lead to: I'm starting my story as rogue level 1 and Im a Minotaur, my name is Sherlock Horns !



-S

sigh - 3.5e would make you be a lvl 1 Minotaur instead and pick up rogue at a later level. The idea of a lvl 1 Minotaur/rogue just is overpowered unless 5e nerfed the hell out of Minotaurs.

Minotaur's are probably nerfed to the ground just like most of the "player races" that used to be monsters. There is no level adjustment anymore like 3.5 use to have. Good example would be Drow and Teiflings, both that had level adjustments.

This took a while to find, but in a previous thread, I went through the 5e races that used to be monsters in 3.5

Monster Races

There were several books that covered making those monster races playable - including a book dedicated to just generally telling you how to do it so you could play as whatever.

It's called the DMG, and it has guidelines for creating balanced playable races for players of any type of creature. It's 5th edition ^.^

It's interesting that you'll speak upwardly of 3.5 for giving the GM power and flexibility over everything... but you insist on bashing 5e for literally doing the exact same thing, Veronica. You clearly have an issue with 5e (and that's fine! It's not for everyone!), but you aren't articulating it well - you're just taking every opportunity to make functionally baseless or intellectually dishonest jabs and barbs at the system, or insult it without backing up what your saying except with cherry-pciked bits and pieces that ignore the sections that illustrate your dishonesty.

Maybe it's not intentional... but it looks intentional right now.

To the original questions:

In 5e at least, story and background trumps hard rules in terms of where your character comes from and what kind of training they have. It's left predominately in the hands of you and your DM to decide what works ad makes sense for you. You might play a middle-aged and fairly grizzled former watchman who is striking out on adventure or is dedicating themselves to a greater oath of righteousness now - their history is the explanation for their above-commoner level capabilities and experience. OR, you might be playing a seventeen year old halfling girl who ran away from home to see the world, and has only recently discovered the beginning blooms of the kinds of magical power her music, song and dance can evoke if she puts her heart into it... Your exact amount of experience in an adventuring lifestyle is almost entirely between you and your DM. the game rules give you as et of proficiencies and skills to represent your beginning point as an adventurer, but you can decide with your DM how you came by them, or even if you have access to all of that right away, if you want.

Multi-classing has some further guidelines and rules for it in the handbook - most importantly, you don't get everything from the new class as though you'd started a level 1 character, because, presumably, you don't have the same background and training or history to explain a full initial class. Instead, you get a small subset of class-related extras along with your 1st level abilities for the new class - you might gain one extra skill, or prociciency in a type of armour you weren't good with before - but you wont' get three new skills, armour proficiency, weapon proficiency and saving throws. Beyond that, Multiclassing also has some simple strictures and requirements; in order to class into anew class, you have to meet some minimum ability score thresholds, which you don't need to meet for your first class; this mostly represents you having sufficient natural aptitude for the new skill set to jump into it at an accelerated rate, without the background training or build up that you might have had for your first class.

In terms of multi-classing access and training, again, this is something that is largely in the hands of you and your DM: you DM might ask you for a justification for your multiclass, or an explanation of why and how you're picking up this skill set now, or they may suggest multi-class options to you based on actions and focuses that your character has been displaying. They also might not, and if no-one at the table feels it's strictly necessary so long as you meet the ability score requirements then that's what works for that table. Usually, when training is brouht up in a multi-classing situation, the training is treated as an on-the-job kind of deal, rather than breaking from the game - unless, of course, you level up at the same time has being given some down time, and you want to work your acquisition of anew class into that scenario. It's very varied, is the basic point ^.^

Wait do you know what level adjustment ment? Look, level adjustment was how you played those races, Say I wanted to play a Teifling, that race was level adjustment +1. The racial abilities were equal to a class level on top of base race. So you would skip a level or take the next level requirement for that class to reach the new class level.

None of this is new to 5th ed. You could play a person with zero experience at anything in any edition if you wanted.

This doesn't change the fact that the game assumes your character has quite a lot of training even before starting his adventuring career. The new Background feature only adds to that assumption by providing even more pre-existing skills (as well as the means by which you explain why you have them).

You can choose to play a smith's apprentice who's never held a weapon before in his life, but he still has the skills of a well trained warrior because you chose Fighter as his class. You can choose to play your halfling Bard who's only just leaving home, but she's still a well trained musician (proficient in three instruments) and already trained in a very specific form of magic. This isn't "background and story trumping hard rules", this is the opposite, this is game mechanics trumping background and story.

And that extra level was a "monster level," not a proper class's level. Similar to how bloodlines ate up a certain number of levels but weren't training as a cleric or such. The point is that they were still playable in 3.5. Even gold dragons.

Yes. In DnD a first level character is generally assumed to already be fully trained in their class at the very least. Achieving a class level is a big deal and the vast majority of people in the world never do it. Even fighters are extraordinary.

"Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen’s army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters."

From DnD Beyond. At level 1 you're already considered to be a professional soldier or the equivalent to a knight who has spent most of their formative years being trained for war.

The best way I've heard the D&D level progression put was this way; the power dynamic was designed to change every 5 levels creating games that look something like this:

Levels 1-5: Gritty fantasy
Levels 6-10: Heroic fantasy
Levels 11-15: Wuxia
Levels 16-20: Superheroic

This was said with regards to 3e but, power creep, aside it still seems to be pretty true to 5e.

So even from level 1 you're still head and shoulders above a regular person, this is also expressed when you roll stats, typically you are rolling your stats so that their average is above what the 'average person' gets (i.e. a bonus of -/+ 0)

I think it's Warhammer where you start out with a bunch of level 0 characters and whoever survives the first session is your character at level 1, so just assume your guy is the one who survived to be level 1.

What I mean is, if your background and story doesn't agree with what the rules say you should have, then generally speaking, the philosophy of 5e design (as it's discussed in the handbook and the dmg for setting up the world, running the game and characterisation) is to allow the background and story to trump the rules. They recommend DMs and players lean into their personal story more heavily and agree on alterations that suit; my bard, for example, doesn't have full control over her magical capabilities, or a good understanding of them yet; I've got the mechanics in the background, but the in-game reality is that I don't have on-demand access to some of that stuff yet, even though by the written rules I should, and sometimes it happens by accident in stresfull situations.

That has been around for the longest time - it's a base rule. In fact, 3.5 had so many alternate systems to allow people to build a game that allowed them the freedom to play they way they wanted. If you want to make your elf proficient with a battle axe instead of a long sword - you merely needed to explain why.


However, whereas previous versions were much more open about what fit into different categories, 5e went hard to narrow it down and reduce everyone to stereotypes - that is where there was change. Neutral and evil clerics used to be able to rebuke dead instead of turning them - that is taken away and all clerics act like good clerics, even if they worship an evil deity. The storytelling focus with 5e comes from having FEWER rules and fewer calculations that free up players to focus on telling the story instead of working on character sheets. 3.5e was too complex for some and 4e was just a hack and slash fiasco that few cared for - 5e went simple everywhere to make the game go faster. The result, however, was stereotyping and constraining character builds.

"The D&D game system is flexible, but it’s also meant to be a balanced
set of rules."

Its fun to see the word "balanced" in 3.5.
There are some totally OP class combinations ( most of them make no sense RP wise ) while it is very easy to make a totally useless char.
I played NWN2 and its amazing what you see when looking at the build maker.
I also read something about a PnP build contest were the winner was a gargantuan monstrosity with many classes, sorry I do not remember details but I think it had also many arms.

Well, you could role play this as " I am a (monster race x) on an epic quest to become a demon lord."

And that's a good thing. Fuck balance. I want some classes to be more powerful then other classes. I want some classes to be weaker. This is a natural result of having more options and it's a good thing.

Best/worst part? The horrid balance was intentional:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081223093330/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142

And this RPGNet thread explains a lot of the problems.

Because obviously, someone who happened to pick the right class should be able to break the campaign wide open, while someone who picked the "wrong" one should struggle mightily. Imbalance works best when it's within a certain limit (so that at least most well played options are viable and none are game-breaking), kept in check, and easily remedied if things get too out of hand.

Really, fuck overpowered characters in a social game like D&D. Or could you explain how having someone basically do everything in a campaign while everyone else is rendered redundant and sitting on their haunches could at all be considered fun for the non-op characters?

Yes, that's the fun of RPG. Picking a weaker class and still dominate in the end is more of a challange and therein lies the fun.
Some people enjoy being OP. Let them. I don't mind mages being ridicolously OP demigods, that's what they are supposed to be.

Get out of WHOSE hand? This is not a competitive multiplayer RPG, this is a single player game that can be played as a cooperative multiplayer game.

LoL what? As I said this is single player xD

You do realize that single-character players exist right? People who don't use companions and such? Yeah. Why should their fun be ruined in the name of balance? Pro tip: it shouldn't be.
Also your philosophy is exactly what leads to all characters being exactly the same apart from some cosmetics. If you want to know where balance leads, look at WoW MoP, where every class could heal themselves and pseudo-tank while dealing good damage. Basically balance always ends up meaning that everyone is the same with cosmetic differences like, oh I don't know, the races in 5th edition already are.

Yeah, no. If they want to be OP, make them mod for OP-ness. And the idea that mages should be OP demigods? Why do you think WOTC nerfed them so heavily in 4 and 5e? Because I'm pretty sure they weren't meant to be that, or people were just finding them unfun as fuck.

Also, struggling to do something as one class while another can do it with just the flick of a wrist, with no way of knowing which is which is not fun in my opinion. It's just stupid game design. Gaming as power fantasy has never appealed to me in the least (well, at least not since I turned thirteen, but at that point things were easing off in my life, so I wanted more challenge).

And show me how a weaker class in 3.5e can dominate in the end when stacked up against a stronger class if both are minmaxed (I know we're talking about 5e but the people who decry balance usually go back to 3.5e as a great system). Here, I'll give you two classes to work with: the Monk (tier five) vs the Druid (tier one) (tier system for 3.5e for convenience)


Hint: this is a game based on D&D, so balance in D&D should carry over here, as all the people complaining about it not being close enough to D&D can attest (and while D&D 5e isn't perfectly balanced, it is reasonably well balanced based on my reading of online discussions. Well, aside from the ranger which is getting a complete rework here). As to whose hands, easy: the GM's or the groups.


Based on the rules of a multiplayer game. And, near as I can tell, most singleplayer games try to achieve a balance between selectable characters, classes or whatever unless they're specifically marked as easy, hard, or whatever. (not always successfully, but at least we have patching now, so it can get better) It's singleplayer so balance shouldn't matter goes against all game design I have ever seen, and I've been gaming since the early nineties, as well. Balance doesn't need to be perfect here, but it still needs to be thought about. I love this reddit thread discussing the concept.


That's a criticism I read a lot, but never have seen in practice. And, as long as the game designers know what they're doing, it's entirely possible to have roughly balanced classes that play completely differently (roughly balanced meaning that, while they play differently, they should have roughly the same difficulty in doing x task, like clearing a room full of enemies). I had an expansive post on this idea in the balance thread, actually.

Because they adopted the cancerous philosophy of balance.

We have a topic about people arguing about whether there should or shouldn't be voiced protags, unlimited ammo, etc etc. It's pretty obvious that if you don't want to be OP you shouldn't pick an OP class. These discussion always end up coming to the compromise that we must give the other side the option to satisfy their needs. What you suggest would take the option of being OP or UP from players who want that experience, in the name of some nebulous "balance".


A literally meaningless question in a single player RPG. You assume there is supposed to be some equality between a hard working wizard and a lazy rogue who always takes the easier path. It's a flawed assumption.


If they want balance, make them mod for balance.
Keep in mind I'm also in favor of peopel being able to play the underdog classes.


Balance should be purged by and large. Classes should have their own independent identity regardless of how they perform compared to each other. A rogue is a rogue regardless of how well it performs vs a wizard. We must do away with the arbitrary limit that classes should only be allowed to exist if they can compete with another class.


Literally does not matter because the product is going to be single player with the option of co-operative multiplayer. Everyone can decide for themselves what they want to be. FURHTERMORE multiclassing exists for those people who feel they picked a wrong class and don't want to start over.


Hence the decline of the gaming industry in the last decade.


Maybe you should play more videogames?

It was up to the DM if they allowed whatever race you was shooting for. Those races had "Monster" levels and generally were considered OP compared to base races.

Trying to recall if anyone in our party back when I played the P&P version actually played a monster race.

Took about 5 minutes, we did, my bro played a drow necro and I played a drow artificer.

As long as there are many OP options, and the multiclass in 5e allows for that, it is way more fun than everyone being "equal" which equals boring.
If you wanna a good a example, just play Diablo 2. Every class in that game can become OP.

And it was made wisely. You want to find a character concept and develop it - if you're going for a tankish fighter, with 18 base strength and low dexterity, it probably isn't wise to take weapon finesse and put your skills into lockpicking, trying to be a jack of all trades. Maybe you shouldn't be stackiing up on both ranged and melee feats. Perhaps your wizard doesn't need to invest in all sorts of melee feats at all - that is what your link is speaking to. Wizards are incredibly weak in lower levels, it actually is balanced to have them powerful at high levels in exchange for that - but if they're doing everything then the DM is designing too small of encounters. But yes - some feats are just a bad idea for a long campaign as opposed to a short one - some feats are a bad idea for a short campaign. Sometimes people good at one thing work on something completely unrelated and get decent at that while losing what they could have been in real life.

This. Exactly.

Incidentally, I followed the link.

I know the edition wars are over but here goes People who think wizards were OP in 3rd ed had DMs who weren't applying the rules as written. Once a wizard starts casting everyone gets a free attack of opportunity -- including the tavern owner who can only swing a pint of ale. Unless the wizard somehow manages to avoid getting hit (and how would they) and have to make concentration check. If they somehow make that then spell could be counter spelled by another mage. Mages pretty quickly learn that casting in combat isn't a great idea and it's better to create wands so you can actually get a spell off. And so the wizard quickly becomes the fantasy version of a gunslinger. And it's hard to level up a 3rd ed wizard -- every wand costs experience points and the rest of the party will soon ask the wizard to create magic swords and the like. So you can look at the spell list and say "wow, these spells would really dominate the late game" but -- unless you have generous DM -- wizards a) have a hard time getting to a level where they can cast those spells b) have a difficult time casting them.

Now the 5 step corrected this some but it was immersion breaking -- so my halfling mage can stretch her suddenly elastic legs through two goblins to make to safety? Of course I'll use it but it doesn't really make any sense . . .

DOS2 actually did this better by making attack of opportunity a feat that one needs to take.

In 5th edition wizards have fewer spell slots but they have a much greater chance of getting a spell to fire.

Anyway, not to bash on 3rd. 3rd was okay but 5th is better.

In your opinion


You know how ridiculous that sounds? Seriously, there is a way to do this already, without sacrificing balance, and it has a name: difficulty levels. You want OP experience? choose easy. You want a UP experience, choose hard. Unbalanced classes should never be substituted for difficulty levels. THAT idea is cancer.

I have never gotten an adequate explanation for why someone should suffer through a ridiculously hard time with their preferred class and playstyle, when one that is uninteresting to them is able to breeze through the game no problem.


Except, no. Again you treat balance as difficulty levels, and that's nonsensical. You fail to provide any explanation for why unbalanced is better beyond "power fantasy" or "interesting"


Too bad for you then that balance is a major concern in game design, so .

[quotd]
Balance should be purged by and large. Classes should have their own independent identity regardless of how they perform compared to each other. A rogue is a rogue regardless of how well it performs vs a wizard. We must do away with the arbitrary limit that classes should only be allowed to exist if they can compete with another class. [/quote]

HAHAHA, NO.

Why do you assume that classes that perform differently cannot be balanced? Seriously, why? Prove to me that that it cannot.


Mm-hmm. And why should one person who happens to pick the right class breeze through the game without breaking a sweat, just by virtue of picking the right class?


What decline?


I play plenty. Maybe you should play more? Or maybe w4e should cut the ad hominems and you actually prove your argument?


Literally never seen how this is supposed to balance out a wizard who can, with a flick of a finger, put all the enemies to sleep or charm them, or use save or die spells, while fighters (for example) still have to get through a wall of hit points which an extra attack or four can only help so much with, and I've been doing a lot of research.

Also, a question I've had (I read it somewhere else, but . Why should fighters, barbarians, and other strength based classes be limited to Conan-level strength, instead of, say ground based superman, while wizards can go full-on peak Dr. Stephen Strange (read: reality warper), instead of being limited to something like Merlin?

I'm going to beat you with this lol.


In your opinion

In your opinion

In your opinion


In your opinion


Why should he not? What injustice did he commit by enjoying the game according to his own taste?


Now it's my turn to laugh lol.


I didn't employ a single one
Also what argument? You are jsut asserting your opinions as facts, that doesn't rise to the level of an argument, I'm just stating you're wrong.

How about you answer how it's wrong to pick a "weak" class in a game with multiclassing? You literally have to go out of your way to end up weak. Like making a barbarian worth 18 INT or something hilarious like that.

Okay, so you got nothing, and you're just going to beat me over the head with the same phrase rather than honestly discuss. Good to know.

As a side note, I mainly said "in your opinion" because part of the reason you're on thin ice with the mods here (one of them said you had recieved your last warning in another thread, so tread carefully) is because you repeatedly treat your own opinion as fact. There's a reason I either cite a source for any claims I make or state that it's my opinion, much of the time. Unless I state that it's a fact or offer evidence, it's best assumed that it is MY OPINION, so just saying "in your opinion" repeatedly adds absolutely nothing but heat to the conversation. Also, How else was I supposed to respond to a contextless, meaningless quote as "balance is cancer" without any explanation?


I have never asserted my opinions as fact, unlike you, but nice try. Anyway, I'm going to quote a long Reddit post here, bolding the most relevant parts that goes into detail about why this line of argument is unpopular (seriously, I tried googling to find opinions that balance is bad and couldn't find ONE).


I would love an explanation about how he is wrong



Okay, prove to all of us that gaming is in decline, and separately prove that it's for the reasons you describe.

You are the one who got nothing, because you are the one who claimed that my opinions are just my opinions and my entire post was about pointing out how the same is true for you.
But somehow it's now my job to bring arguments, because your opinions are facts, and anyone else's are just opinions. Wrong.

*facepalms* scintilating and amazing discussion over here, fellas.

This is what you get once balance is introduced. Meaninglessness.

Mate, you're acting like a bit of a wad. I honestly don't know what to say other than that.

Ok? That doesn't change the fact that balance is a terrible idea to base a game around.

I figure we are going to have to agree to disagree. Have a good one.

This conversation is not getting anywhere in its current form.

Please bring it back to the topic of the thread and discuss it civilly.

It's usually assumed you've been trained, and some things (like a fighter reader scrolls) is partially rules and partially the dm (larian in this case) allowed leeway for fighters that might have a history with magic

The thing you 'need' to understand is the levels themselves (and by extension, increments) are abstractions. In Baldur's Gate III's case it's very deliberately vague because with post above with Mr. Mercer's video tries to explain, you can sit down and think of a backstory and then cross reference it with the DM, who can then go "No, X won't make sense in the campaign."
To return to the scroll, Tav could be a (body)guard in an enviroment with lots of magic, such as a mage school. They might not have any experience with scrolls at all. They might have been an adventurer for a while and learned-on-the-job. The game can't sit you down and go through every possible solution (and from my memories on Baldur's Gate I+II, it meant scrolls were basically 'free casts' for the mages only)
This abstraction also applies to levels: you don't suddenly multiclass from level 1 fighter to a level 1 fighter+level 1 thief and instantly get all the knowledge. Tav's been practicing in camp on lockpicking (perhaps with Asterion's help?). Shadowheart's been giving him tips on how to sneak around, ect. Going into that thief level is the culmination of all the practice, to the point Tav can reliably do those things without supervision.

I hope that explanation's made sense and helps

My own first gut reaction would be to say characters would need proficiency in Arcana to cast from scrolls not of their spellist, or maybe a feat (or Background feature) representing training.

But everybody being able to read scrolls is one of those concessions I'd just tolerate because it was a game and it can't be handled as flexibly and intuitively as in a real game.

Its a bug that every class can use any scroll and that mages can learn any spell from a scroll.
I hope they fix it in the next patch.

In my original post I did not say that fighters can read scrolls.
I said fighters are profient with martial weapons and heavy armor and mages can read scrolls.

Yes that pretty much nails the point exactly

It should be noted that Savage Species was among the worst D&D supplements made, as it was designed specifically with the intent of discouraging its use by overly punitive Level Adjustments. "Here's a book to play monsters, but since we don't want you playing monsters, they will all suck".

Then again, the same thing could be said of anything not a caster in that garbage edition.

That's what levels are for. If you want YOUR fighter to be a wand caddy, that's great, simply don't level him up. Sadly we only got one edition that treated martial characters with any degree of respect.

No one

No one cares about 3.5

Fun > Balance.

However, you need to hit a certain pre-requisite level of balance in order to have fun, even in a single player game.

At a certain level of unbalanced, you're basically eliminating player options, because one class or path is simply far too optimal. Imagine if BG3 only had the Wizard Class (as is) + several variations of the Commoner class - you wouldn't want to play any of the commoner classes, and you'd likely get very bored of the Wizard class quickly (just look at how we're basically sick of the classes in EA already).

On the flip side, you never want to be too balanced, where choices simply become superficial (i.e. Class A and Class B both do 5 damage - except one shoots red beams and the other blue). Any system with meaningful choices will effectively have some form of optimization and hierarchy. That's why I'm usually lenient on RPGs having easy late-games - because it's a sign that builds and character choices matter (since they have to balance towards the mean).

In practice - 5E Wish Spell? Terrible. It's almost a blank cheque to do anything and is game-breaking. 5E Meteor Swarm? A bit overtuned in terms of damage (250% higher than level 8 Horrid Wilting), but thematically great, fulfills a concept, and doesn't make other classes obselete (hence deleting options) - that's good OPness.

Stop taking this to its extremes.

Balancemen is wrong. So is monte cook.

Yes a PoE like situation wehre balance saps the fun out of a product is awfull. Howver 3.5 caster dominance is also complete garbage and most of you that played BG1 and 2 havent actually seen the worst of it

It is known.

PoE 2 allows for many OP multiclass options. That is the optimal case and not one class being stricly stronger than the others as some people here are thinking.

So does Kingmaker, where casters are actually pretty weak compared to martials.

3.5 is relevant to the OP topic and generally this answered the question and I do.