<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=50216.msg2358676#msg2358676">Quote from: Katina Tarask on 20-10-2009, 02:41:16</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">"Optimized or balanced for different scenarios," first requires that a character be optimized and balanced.  The problem arises when classes that don't <em>have</em> actual strengths to capitalize on; the Fighter class gets absolutely no abilities except the ability to fight, yet isn't good at fighting past the earliest levels without a tremendous amount of work.  It's standard fare for everyone to have different strengths and weaknesses, but they must first have level-appropriate strengths to contribute at all, which is the Fighter class's problem past the earliest levels.  I can see what this (rather improved) version of Nara is <em>meant</em> to be, but the mechanics just simply don't pan out to anything effective as they are now.<br/><br/>And no, I don't know why it's the Warblade that got the d12 hit die instead of the Crusader.  I mean, Crusader is <em>the</em> defensive juggernaut class in the game (not counting casters), it would make a lot more sense for them, but I'm not complaining.<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>I really don't care much for balance, I'm more about specialization. I have seen Fighter Builds that at level 1 are pretty much tanks for parties of level 4. Specialization is why my RPG game characters in games like Champions of Norrath are so strong. I make no attempt at Balance and basically play to the strengths of my class. When I make an Archer all they're getting is DEX and a little INT and when I make a Barb all they're getting is STR.<br/><br/>Also, I suggest using the Fighter class from Pathfinder, not hard to adapt and much more balanced.