Balancing D&D

[Axel]

One of my many problems with 3rd edition was its gratuitous use of magic. I believe only 2 or 3 classes were not granted spells, or spell-like abilities. Like its other major faults; its overloaded spell tables, its lousy writing, and its nearly useless Rogue; this was fixed, not by 3.5, (which failed to adress any of its problems) but in the less known Wheel of Time RPG. WoT has certain other limits, most notably its lack of races, but with a certain amount of imagination it can easily outshine 3rd edition.
Because only one book was released for this it contains condenced versions of all 3 core rule books, and because it's popularity was not anticipated by WoTC it is cheaper than the PHB.

[DarkDragoonX]

I still think you just aren't playing 3rd edition right. I ALWAYS play as a rouge, and I'm not useless at all. Your problem is you try to play 3rd edition with an AD&D 2nd edition mentality, and so you'll never really "get" it. You're one of perhaps two hundered people on the planet who doesn't like D&D 3rd edition. Since 90% of the role-playing population agrees that it is, for the most part, an improvement, logic would suggest that the problem is on your end.

[slothman]

Logic wouldn't suggest that the problem is on his end just because a majority agree. I don't really have an idea since I haven't looked at the 3 rules.

[DarkDragoonX]

So you're saying that the laws of cause and effect don't apply? Logically, if 3rd Edition was bad, people wouldn't still be playing it. However, since the vast majority of role-players now plays D&D 3rd edition instead of AD&D 2nd edition, we can safely say that 3rd edition is a good product, otherwise they wouldn't be playing it, would they?

So, since we have now concluded that 3rd edition IS good, it follows logically that it's Axel's fault for not liking it, rather that 3rd edition's fault for being a bad product.

[Axel]

You're talking to an atheist, I've lived my life not agreeing with alot of people.
Now I play 2nd edition because I find it superior, in so many ways. Many people play 3rd because 2nd is not availible, they've never seen it, or because they can't find other people who play 3rd. And WoTC has already admitted that 3rd is an unbalanced product in their release of 3.5. However I look at WoT because it uses the same system as 3rd edition, but lacks the highly unbalanced class system.
To give you an idea. The Armsman and Fighter are comparable.
However the Ranger and Woodsman have extreme differences. At first they seem comparable, the Woodsman gets a favored terrain, to the Ranger's favored enemy. But while Rangers develop spell casting abilities, quite needlessly, the Woodsman advances in woodcraft.
The Wanderer and Rogue have almost identical abilities. However while the Rogue lost his predecessor's (the Thief) monopoly on thieving abilities and automatic use of them, but is still described as the Thief; the Wanderer is so loosely described as to imply many more uses than an underpowered thief.
The Bard has enough powers without his spellcasting abilities. And unlike his 2nd edition predeccessor he doesn't need a different ability to cast, so in addition to his already extensive powers, he has spells. His WoT counterpart, the Gleeman, makes due with his abilities as a fighter and entertainer, without overpowered spells.
The Barbarian is almost useless as a distinctive class, since it is just a slightly modified Fighter. Beyond that if played as it was intended the Barbarian is either impossible to roleplay, or impossible to function in a party.

[Ibis, God of Magicks]

Well, Axel if you don't like 3rd. ed. don't fucking play it.

I liked second ed. and I like third. I don't find a big balancing problem, and if there is a problem with unbalanced PC's, a real GM would handle it himself.

[Axel]

am I the only one that noticed I was talking about Wheel of Time RPG, not AD&D 2e? I was trying to point you in the direction of an awesome game.

[Ibis, God of Magicks]

am I the only one that noticed I was talking about Wheel of Time RPG, not AD&D 2e? I was trying to point you in the direction of an awesome game.

Soo.... does that mean you gonna start begging for a Wheel of Time forum?

[Axel]

considering the beyond spectacular failure of the tabletop roleplaying forum I think not. I can't figure out why the idea failed, I must assume my critics have a problem with any change whatsoever, no matter how small. Or maybe its just me.

Does this mean you're going to pay attention to what I post instead of ill conceived prejudices on what you think I'll say?