Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are there too darn many spellcasters?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7322018" data-attributes="member: 6775031"><p>There has never been a fantasy character concept that <em>couldn't</em> be made to fit into one of the core classes, with minimal loss of class identity.</p><p></p><p>The real culprit here is third edition, with its flexible multi-classing. Once players had the option to change class every level, a lot of players noticed that there was no reason to continue in a non-casting class after it stopped granting new powers, which is why 3.5 (and even moreso with Pathfinder) tried as hard as it could to make sure every class gave a new power at every level. If you remember the early polls for 5E, even, one of the big demands was the removal of "empty" levels. </p><p></p><p>And that meant the creation of filler content, which served to differentiate classes in trivial ways. You could remove fully <em>half</em> of the abilities from every martial class, and it wouldn't change the game significantly except in reducing its complexity. But now that we've established a precedent for trivial abilities differentiating martial classes, many people seem to feel that they need new classes with different trivial abilities in order to properly represent a character concept.</p><p>I've read through Iron Heroes, and it reminds me a lot of 4E in that everyone has a lot of decisions to make every round, and every combat would need to take several rounds in order to really explore the tactical depth that they expect you to use. I'm also reminded of the Book of 9 Swords, and the way that its myriad power options <em>didn't</em> always compare favorably against a PHB fighter just making a full-attack action.</p><p></p><p>Maneuvers worked well in 4E because they intended the game to be <em>about</em> fighting. You did some exploring and talking between fights, sure, but you were expected to have four fights per day and those fights would each take an hour to resolve. Fighters had maneuvers, and wizards has spells, and everyone's turn took about the same amount of time to resolve.</p><p></p><p>I don't really want D&D to go down that road, though. I don't think that fifth edition <em>wants</em> to be that game, either. If given the choice between juggling maneuvers with different cooldowns for an optimal dpr of 37, or auto-attacking for a dpr of 35, I'll choose the auto-attack <em>because I want combat to be over</em> so we can move on to the next thing. That's the real benefit of abstracting all of those maneuvers into a single attack roll. If there's a disparity in spotlight between the time spent to resolve the fighter's attacks and the wizard's spells, I would much rather that it be addressed by reducing the complexity on the wizard's side.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 7322018, member: 6775031"] There has never been a fantasy character concept that [I]couldn't[/I] be made to fit into one of the core classes, with minimal loss of class identity. The real culprit here is third edition, with its flexible multi-classing. Once players had the option to change class every level, a lot of players noticed that there was no reason to continue in a non-casting class after it stopped granting new powers, which is why 3.5 (and even moreso with Pathfinder) tried as hard as it could to make sure every class gave a new power at every level. If you remember the early polls for 5E, even, one of the big demands was the removal of "empty" levels. And that meant the creation of filler content, which served to differentiate classes in trivial ways. You could remove fully [I]half[/I] of the abilities from every martial class, and it wouldn't change the game significantly except in reducing its complexity. But now that we've established a precedent for trivial abilities differentiating martial classes, many people seem to feel that they need new classes with different trivial abilities in order to properly represent a character concept. I've read through Iron Heroes, and it reminds me a lot of 4E in that everyone has a lot of decisions to make every round, and every combat would need to take several rounds in order to really explore the tactical depth that they expect you to use. I'm also reminded of the Book of 9 Swords, and the way that its myriad power options [I]didn't[/I] always compare favorably against a PHB fighter just making a full-attack action. Maneuvers worked well in 4E because they intended the game to be [I]about[/I] fighting. You did some exploring and talking between fights, sure, but you were expected to have four fights per day and those fights would each take an hour to resolve. Fighters had maneuvers, and wizards has spells, and everyone's turn took about the same amount of time to resolve. I don't really want D&D to go down that road, though. I don't think that fifth edition [I]wants[/I] to be that game, either. If given the choice between juggling maneuvers with different cooldowns for an optimal dpr of 37, or auto-attacking for a dpr of 35, I'll choose the auto-attack [I]because I want combat to be over[/I] so we can move on to the next thing. That's the real benefit of abstracting all of those maneuvers into a single attack roll. If there's a disparity in spotlight between the time spent to resolve the fighter's attacks and the wizard's spells, I would much rather that it be addressed by reducing the complexity on the wizard's side. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are there too darn many spellcasters?
Top