Why do you think WOTC nerfed them so heavily in 4 and 5e?
Because they adopted the cancerous philosophy of balance.
In your opinion
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".
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.
show me how a weaker class in 3.5e can dominate in the end when stacked up against a stronger class
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.
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"
If they want to be OP, make them mod for OP-ness
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.
Too bad for you then that balance is a major concern in game design, so .
balance in D&D should carry over here
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]
Why do you assume that classes that perform differently cannot be balanced? Seriously, why? Prove to me that that it cannot.
Based on the rules of a multiplayer game
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.
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?
most singleplayer games try to achieve a balance between selectable characters
Hence the decline of the gaming industry in the last decade.
never have seen in practice
Maybe you should play more videogames?
I play plenty. Maybe you should play more? Or maybe w4e should cut the ad hominems and you actually prove your argument?
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).
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.
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.
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?