• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

wakedown

Explorer
That's why I suggested Paizo could make an advanced 5e Options book. 5e is very modular and more character Options or mechanics could possibly be added to support those who like the crunch. I understand yalls opinions though and I cant fully disagree with them because competition is good. I just feel a lot of good stories were missed by folks unwilling to dig through the complexity of PF1e.

While we love our ENworld team, it's telling that A Touch More Class (for 5E) had 2630 backers and Paizo/Legendary's Kingmaker (for PF2, PF1 & 5E) had 2347 backers (and has had a longer opportunity to secure that number and a CRPG audience to feed off).

Or a 5E campaign setting in the Humblewood Kickstarter grabbed 14,604 backers.

To a certain extent you have your wish in that older Paizo contributors are all mostly 5E contributors these days just that work is being done outside of Paizo Inc ownership. I suspect it's just a matter of time (in the next 0-2 years) before some of the most tenured Paizoians (Jacobs & Bulmahn) attempt their own Kickstarters given that if they did something to support 5E as independents, done right they're probably looking at a $1M campaign with 10K backers. I imagine for Jacobs it'll be harder since he essentially gifted his home world to Paizo Inc. For Bulmahn it'll be a redemption path as he could conceivably be the guy who publishes the "3.875" rules being clamored for and as a sole-not-a-committee author show he's batting 2 of 2 on rules publishing while disassociating PF2E to a certain extent.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Tony Vargas

Legend
That is the reason I'm not bringing it it. I simply don't care about 4E. They could have cured cancer and it wouldn't make an iota of difference
That's showing you care, /a lot/, just in a very negative way. Like <a possible RL examples redacted> … er, like a Klingon cares about tribbles[/quote]
while I'm sure it's technically true it is also entirely irrelevant.
When you assert that 5e has 'raised' a bar, and that reducing somewhat the enormity of the gap between caster & martial classes relative to 3.5, is a major way in which that bar was 'raised,' yeah, the fact that bar hasn't moved much at all is kinda relevant.

At least you're no longer trying to promulgate the fiction that 5e 'fixed LFQW,' when, in fact, it brought it back.

The only comparison relevant to me is if PF2 will come across as a modern or retrograde game, seeing as we now live in a post 5E world.
"Retrograde?" Who doesn't just say 'retro.' And, in the post-5e 'world' (of TTRPGs), it's a lot safer to follow the leader, and go retro - but not /quite/ OSR retro. 'Modern' would be following trends led by games like PbtA or DitV or something... and that would probably be a bad call for Paizo.

Really, it's kinda funny, D&D is riding a come-back wave, rivaling it's 80s popularity, in small part, by evoking the feel of the system as it was in the 80s, and, in large part, by having 'D&D' on the cover while threading that always-critical-when-selling-cult/nerd-IP-to-the-mainstream needle between accessible to new fans and acceptable to old fans. Because if you make the game too faithful to the existing fanbase, it'll repel too many of the newbies who try it - and if you don't make it faithful /enough/ the fans will raise such a 'controversy' that few newbies will want to try it.

The only way that matters to PF2 is that they don't have an old-fan backlash to hitch their clone-an-old-version wagon to, this time.


I'm sure you have ample reason for your concern.
Me however I would LOVE if PF2 ended up as an alternative for all of us wanting more playerside crunch than 5E can provide. Just a functional utility-based magic item economy alone would be very welcome!
I get that, I really do, because 5e's slow pace of release is upsetting to the GABA receptors of anyone acclimated to 3.5/PF. But, really, they can't easily be going that way. It'd've made a lot more sense, if they were going there, to have hopped onto the 5e bandwagon no later than the release of it's SRD, and started churning out high-quality adventures, either their usual APs or the smaller-format old-school-style modules WotC seems reluctant to print, and then segue from that into providing 'Advanced' supplemental options for 5e, finally bringing it up to 3.5-style speed.

We'd have the munching and the crunching. ;)

PF2 doesn't sound a thing like that - nor does it sound anything like 4e.

LFQW is unmanageable too large in 3E/PF1.

LFQW is manageably fixed and contained in 5E.
Yeah. No. Nice try though. LFQW and Tier 1 caster supremacy was absolutely /crazy/ in 3.5, though, you're not wrong about that, even PF1 arguably reigned it in a little. It's like 3.5 was the Joker running wild in Gotham City while Batman was on vacation, and 5e is the contained, manageable, Hannibal Lecter.

I'm only talking about a game's level of LFQW. What 4E does or do not do simply isn't needed to make the above point.
[/quote]On an LFQW/caster-supremacy scale of 1-10, with 1 being theoretically-impossible perfect caster-martial balance, and 10 being "would make even an Ars Magica mage feel a little guilty." And leaving out 4e:

3.5: 15
PF1: 14
5e: 13
2e: 12
1e: 11

j/k ;)

f'real, this time:


3.5: 10
5e: 9
AD&D: 8

How can it be difficult to understand "I hope, for Paizo's sake, PF2 is like 5E and not like 3E"...?
It's not hard to understand, at all: that's fairly clearly-stated.

/The/ big difference between 5e & 3e, though, is DM Empowerment, as abetted by the 'play loop.'
Other than that*, especially with options turned on, they're quite similar systems.


It even furthers that trend from 3-4e by saying, "if magic is so good, then let's just give it to everyone."
Please stop spreading this misinformation. It's edition warring nonsense.
Oh, be serious, there's no criticism of 5e that rises to the level of sheer libel that typified the edition war. I mean, for one thing, Aldarc is just stating a fact: every class in the 5e PH does, in fact, use magic, as a feature, no magic items required.

What he's leaving out is that 3 of those classes - the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue - use magic in only one of their sub-classes (TB, EK, & AT). That's hardly even misleading.

It's not remotely in the same league of the old edition-warring "Fighters cast spells!" that was flatly false. Because, in 5e, Fighters - who take the Eldritch Knight archetype at 3rd level - do, in fact, cast spells.

And nobody really cares. ;P
 
Last edited:

Imaro

Legend
Oh, be serious, there's no criticism of 5e that rises to the level of sheer libel that typified the edition war. I mean, for one thing, Aldarc is just stating a fact: every class in the 5e PH does, in fact, use magic, as a feature, no magic items required.

What he's leaving out is that 3 of those classes - the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue - use magic in only one of their sub-classes (TB, EK, & AT). That's hardly even misleading.

It's not remotely in the same league of the old edition-warring "Fighters cast spells!" that was flatly false. Because, in 5e, Fighters - who take the Eldritch Knight archetype at 3rd level - do, in fact, cast spells.

And nobody really cares. ;P

I'm going to assume you were trying to quote me and note I didn't make any comparisons to levels of libel... Plain and simple everyone does not have magic in 5e. That simple undeniable fact makes his statement false (thus misinformation)... and the statement was being used to disparage one edition in comparison to another... but apparently for you that only seems to matter if it's 4e being disparaged... Continue fighting the silly fight last of the 4eriors... Lol
 
Last edited:

Parmandur

Book-Friend
That's showing you care, /a lot/, just in a very negative way. Like <a possible RL examples redacted> … er, like a Klingon cares about tribbles
When you assert that 5e has 'raised' a bar, and that reducing somewhat the enormity of the gap between caster & martial classes relative to 3.5, is a major way in which that bar was 'raised,' yeah, the fact that bar hasn't moved much at all is kinda relevant.

At least you're no longer trying to promulgate the fiction that 5e 'fixed LFQW,' when, in fact, it brought it back.

"Retrograde?" Who doesn't just say 'retro.' And, in the post-5e 'world' (of TTRPGs), it's a lot safer to follow the leader, and go retro - but not /quite/ OSR retro. 'Modern' would be following trends led by games like PbtA or DitV or something... and that would probably be a bad call for Paizo.

Really, it's kinda funny, D&D is riding a come-back wave, rivaling it's 80s popularity, in small part, by evoking the feel of the system as it was in the 80s, and, in large part, by having 'D&D' on the cover while threading that always-critical-when-selling-cult/nerd-IP-to-the-mainstream needle between accessible to new fans and acceptable to old fans. Because if you make the game too faithful to the existing fanbase, it'll repel too many of the newbies who try it - and if you don't make it faithful /enough/ the fans will raise such a 'controversy' that few newbies will want to try it.

The only way that matters to PF2 is that they don't have an old-fan backlash to hitch their clone-an-old-version wagon to, this time.


I get that, I really do, because 5e's slow pace of release is upsetting to the GABA receptors of anyone acclimated to 3.5/PF. But, really, they can't easily be going that way. It'd've made a lot more sense, if they were going there, to have hopped onto the 5e bandwagon no later than the release of it's SRD, and started churning out high-quality adventures, either their usual APs or the smaller-format old-school-style modules WotC seems reluctant to print, and then segue from that into providing 'Advanced' supplemental options for 5e, finally bringing it up to 3.5-style speed.

We'd have the munching and the crunching. ;)

PF2 doesn't sound a thing like that - nor does it sound anything like 4e.

Yeah. No. Nice try though. LFQW and Tier 1 caster supremacy was absolutely /crazy/ in 3.5, though, you're not wrong about that, even PF1 arguably reigned it in a little. It's like 3.5 was the Joker running wild in Gotham City while Batman was on vacation, and 5e is the contained, manageable, Hannibal Lecter.

[/quote]On an LFQW/caster-supremacy scale of 1-10, with 1 being theoretically-impossible perfect caster-martial balance, and 10 being "would make even an Ars Magica mage feel a little guilty." And leaving out 4e:

3.5: 15
PF1: 14
5e: 13
2e: 12
1e: 11

j/k ;)

f'real, this time:


3.5: 10
5e: 9
AD&D: 8

It's not hard to understand, at all: that's fairly clearly-stated.

/The/ big difference between 5e & 3e, though, is DM Empowerment, as abetted by the 'play loop.'
Other than that*, especially with options turned on, they're quite similar systems.


Oh, be serious, there's no criticism of 5e that rises to the level of sheer libel that typified the edition war. I mean, for one thing, Aldarc is just stating a fact: every class in the 5e PH does, in fact, use magic, as a feature, no magic items required.

What he's leaving out is that 3 of those classes - the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue - use magic in only one of their sub-classes (TB, EK, & AT). That's hardly even misleading.

It's not remotely in the same league of the old edition-warring "Fighters cast spells!" that was flatly false. Because, in 5e, Fighters - who take the Eldritch Knight archetype at 3rd level - do, in fact, cast spells.

And nobody really cares. ;P

As to the use of "retrograde," the Capn is Swedish (IIRC), and is working on his second language at any rate.

5E solves the caster/martial gap by making the difference manageable, rather than removing the difference. In combat, a Fighter without magic will, over the course of a full combat day, contribute the same asa Wizard: the difference now isn't linear progression versus quadratic progression, it's a steady line of contribution versus a wave pattern of contribution for the Wizard. If the casters are consistently outshining the martials, then the DM needs to up the ante and make the casters worry about the resource game. If resources are not pushed to their limit, it is a table issue, not the rules of 5E having failed to provide the solution.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Wow. Attribution.

4E is the edition that solved the caster/martial gap by flattening the playing field
Correct.
AEDU eliminated LFQW on the basic, mechanical level. Resource progressions were at a rough parity.

It certainly wasn't /perfect/ - there's no comparing Comeback Strike to Sleep, for instance, even though each was arguably its respective class's best level 1 daily.

And, even then, /encounter/ balance (challenge) was affected by pacing & day length, just not class balance.

5E solves the caster/martial gap by making the difference manageable, rather than removing the difference.
That's not actually /solving/, and, really, 'manageable's what every classic edition (and even 3.5) did, already, anyway...

In combat, a Fighter without magic will, over the course of a full combat day, contribute the same asa Wizard: the difference now isn't linear progression versus quadratic progression, it's a steady line of contribution versus a wave pattern of contribution for the Wizard. If the casters are consistently outshining the martials, then the DM needs to up the ante and make the casters worry about the resource game. If resources are not pushed to their limit, it is a table issue, not the rules of 5E having failed to provide the solution.
Not actually what LFQW refers too, though it's closely related, and, well, it's a good description of an important issue that comes up when running /any/ edition of D&D, so worth talking about (more on LFQW later).

Yes, non-casters have generally tended to grind out their contribution (little more than dishing out and soaking up damage, in the case of the classic 'simple fighter') in a consistent, round-by-round, entirely at-will manner. And the idea was that, while casters would completely upstage that any round they cast a spell, they wouldn't be casting spells all the time - because there were a /lot/ of considerations, limitations to casting in the olden days.
[sblock="it was hard out there, for a caster"]A caster had to memorize spells in advance, so he had to pick not only the spells he'd likely need, but how many times he'd need each of them. In practice, given imperfect information, that meant needing spells that you could have picked but didn't, and either casting a poor substitute or not casting at all in the round that came up; that meant not needing a spell you did memorize, at all, so ending the day with it uncast, essentially reducing your spells/day by 1; that meant hesitating to use a spell early even when that might end up having been the best chance to use it, even hesitating to cast a spell only to find the day's challenges over and, again, yourself functionally 'down' a spell/day. Casters also had to deal with difficulties casting spells in melee (or even at range or under even slightly challenging adventuring conditions, like a pitching ship's deck or swaying rope bridge or back of a moving mount) and could /lose/ a spell they attempted to cast as a result - again, down another spell/day.[/sblock]
Later editions progressively did away with basically all those restrictions. Casting in 5e is carefree, wasted slots are rarity, all your slots are likely used as efficiently as possible, limited only by your tactical acumen and DM's fiendishness.

What's more, the baseline that casters operated at has edged up, too. A wizard throwing darts in 1e, in 3e, was shooting a light crossbow, and, in 5e, throws attack cantrips that scale with level.

It's no surprise that the prescribed day length to balance the Champion trudging along, grinding out the damage round after round, punctuated maybe every-other encounter by an action surge, with the Wizard, casting his best spell for the situation with every slot, and tossing one of several attack cantrips in between, required 5e prescribing a 6-8 encounter, 2-3 short rest 'day.'

Thing is, that's not a solution, it's an issue, in itself, as it's dictating how the DM run his game and what decisions the players have on the table. Because, if the players /do/ decide to long rest more often or short rest less often, the values plugged into that formula change, and the putative 'balance' vanishes. It's not like 5e doesn't give players tools to carry through with such a decision, either.

So, saying it's 'fixed' or 'manageable' is pushing it. It was manageable the same way it was in the TSR era. Heck, a draconian* enough DM could even tax 3.x casters so heavily with time pressures, misleading information, and brutal enemy tactics as to drag them down to the Tier 5 classes' baseline and impose heavy-handed balance, even on that 'peak magic' version of D&D. ;)


So, yeah, time pressure and encounters/day and restrictions on magic have always attempted to impose balance on innately unbalanced classes in D&D.


LFQW, though, actually refers to the progression of classes as they level. A classic beatstick fighter increments his chance to hit every level. He might get a better magic weapon now and then. He eventually gets more than one attack per round. His DPR steadily increases. That's the LF. The caster, OTOH, starts out with 1 spell of 1st level cast at 1st level ability and as he levels gets more spell, higher level spells, and all those spells scale, so his power balloons at an accelerating place. That's the QW (Q for quadratic, and it might be better to say geometric or hyperbolic or something else, depending on how big a math geek you are and how precise you need your metaphors to be). You might think that a 5e caster's spells scaling some things, like damage, with slot instead of character level addresses that, and it does, a bit - but, then, so did 3.5 scaling save DCs & capping damage with slot rather than caster level, and that didn't help much, either. (Bottom line, though, low level spells stay useful in both eds: 3.5 for spells without saves like utility spells, 5e for spells /with/ saves. The coefficients are slightly different, but it's still metaphorically "quadratic.")
















* cf: Heart of Nightfang Spire.
 
Last edited:

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Wow. Attribution.
That's not actually /solving/, and, really, 'manageable's what every classic edition (and even 3.5) did, already, anyway...

Not actually what LFQW refers too, though it's closely related, and, well, it's a good description of an important issue that comes up when running /any/ edition of D&D, so worth talking about (more on LFQW later).

Yes, no-casters have generally tended to grind out their contribution (little more than dishing out and soaking up damage, in the case of the classic 'simple fighter') in a consistent, round-by-round, entirely at-will manner. And the idea was that, while casters would completely upstage that any round they cast a spell, they wouldn't be casting spells all the time - because there were a /lot/ of considerations, limitations to casting in the olden days.
[sblock="it was hard out there, for a caster"]A caster had to memorize spells in advance, so he had to pick not only the spells he'd likely need, but how many times he'd need each of them. In practice, given imperfect information, that meant needing spells that you could have picked but didn't, and either casting a poor substitute or not casting at all in the round that came up; that meant not needing a spell you did memorize, at all, so ending the day with it uncast, essentially reducing your spells/day by 1; that meant hesitating to use a spell early even when that might end up having been the best chance to use it, even hesitating to cast a spell only to find the day's challenges over and, again, yourself functionally 'down' a spell/day. Casters also had to deal with difficulties casting spells in melee (or even at range or under even slightly challenging adventuring conditions, like a pitching ship's deck or swaying rope bridge or back of a moving mount) and could /lose/ a spell they attempted to cast as a result - again, down another spell/day.[/sblock]
Later editions progressively did away with basically all those restrictions. Casting in 5e is carefree, wasted slots are rarity, all your slots are likely used as efficiently as possible, limited only by your tactical acumen and DM's fiendishness.

What's more, the baseline that casters operated at has edged up, too. A wizard throwing darts in 1e, in 3e, was shooting a light crossbow, and, in 5e, throws attack cantrips that scale with level.

It's no surprise that the prescribed day length to balance the Champion trudging along, grinding out the damage round after round, punctuated maybe every-other encounter by an action surge, with the Wizard, casting his best spell for the situation with every slot, and tossing one of several attack cantrips in between, required 5e prescribing a 6-8 encounter, 2-3 short rest 'day.'

Thing is, that's not a solution, it's an issue, in itself, as it's dictating how the DM run his game and what decisions the players have on the table. Because, if the players /do/ decide to long rest more often or short rest less often, the values plugged into that formula change, and the putative 'balance' vanishes. It's not like 5e doesn't give players tools to carry through with such a decision, either.

So, saying it's 'fixed' or 'manageable' is pushing it. It was manageable the same way it was in the TSR era. Heck, a draconian* enough DM could even tax 3.x casters so heavily with time pressures, misleading information, and brutal enemy tactics as to drag them down to the Tier 5 classes' baseline and impose heavy-handed balance, even on that 'peak magic' version of D&D. ;)


So, yeah, time pressure and encounters/day and restrictions on magic have always attempted to impose balance on innately unbalanced classes in D&D.


LFQW, though, actually refers to the progression of classes as they level. A classic beatstick fighter increments his chance to hit every level. He might get a better magic weapon now and then. He eventually gets more than one attack per round. His DPR steadily increases. That's the LF. The caster, OTOH, starts out with 1 spell of 1st level cast at 1st level ability and as he levels gets more spell, higher level spells, and all those spells scale, so his power balloons at an accelerating place. That's the QW (Q for quadratic, and it might be better to say geometric or hyperbolic or something else, depending on how big a math geek you are and how precise you need your metaphors to be). You might think that a 5e caster's spells scaling some things, like damage, with slot instead of character level addresses that, and it does, a bit - but, then, so did 3.5 scaling save DCs & capping damage with slot rather than caster level, and that didn't help much, either. (Bottom line, though, low level spells stay useful in both eds: 3.5 for spells without saves like utility spells, 5e for spells /with/ saves. The coefficients are slightly different, but it's still metaphorically "quadratic.")
















* cf: Heart of Nightfang Spire.

The spell slots have a defined damage/healing HP value, as outlined in the DMG, yes. This is the basis for the balance. The tools to provide combat parity are provided to the DM, and aren't rocket science. Narrative balance outside combat is provided for in downtime rules. Note that the cantrips are always(literally always) never better than a crossbow: as they scale, they do so to keep up with what would be a Tier appropriate magical crossbow.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
The spell slots have a defined damage/healing HP value, as outlined in the DMG, yes. This is the basis for the balance. The tools to provide combat parity are provided to the DM, and aren't rocket science. Note that the cantrips are always(literally always) never better than a crossbow: as they scale, they do so to keep up with what would be a Tier appropriate magical crossbow.
That's about the idea, well, except for the assumption of magical crossbows, if that's what you meant (5e assumes no magic items & no feats; and, cantrips scale in step with extra attacks, so would leave a crossbow in the dust, due to the loading property).
Cantrips are an at-will baseline that stays a bit below the at-will baseline of non- (and 1/2 & 1/3rd &c) casters, so, if a 'day' is long enough, that difference adds up to the difference between the at-will baseline and that spell-casting spikes...

...and, yes, it does seem to be fairly neatly formulaic in terms of DPR, which /is/ the most easily calculated, thus most easily criticized metric with which D&D is typically flogged. ;)

But, it completely ignores versatility, the more difficult metric that organized the infamous 3.x "Class Tiers" which, really, haven't changed /that/ dramatically in 5e (apart from there being dramatically fewer classes, and the Bard really climbing).

Narrative balance outside combat is provided for in downtime rules.
Not see'n that so much. I mean, I /like/ that there are downtime rules, at all, but I don't see how they balance anything, they're just kinda neat.

Out of combat balance is between at-will resources (checks) which casters are at least as good at as non-casters, and rituals, which are a little more time-consuming, though also unlimited-use. So, again, it's a matter of imposing some rough balance through time-pressure.
 
Last edited:

Imaro

Legend
But, it completely ignores versatility, the more difficult metric that organized the infamous 3.x "Class Tiers" which, really, haven't changed /that/ dramatically in 5e (apart from there being dramatically fewer classes, and the Bard really climbing).

Yes but magic (in the form of rituals and even powers) in the game gave more versatility to casters in 4e as well... so how did 4e solve this if, according to you, 5e doesn't solve it because casters are more versatile?
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
That's about the idea, well, except for the assumption of magical crossbows, if that's what you meant (5e assumes no magic items & no feats; and, cantrips scale in step with extra attacks, so would leave a crossbow in the dust, due to the loading property).
Cantrips are an at-will baseline that stays a bit below the at-will baseline of non- (and 1/2 & 1/3rd &c) casters, so, if a 'day' is long enough, that difference adds up to the difference between the at-will baseline and that spell-casting spikes...

...and, yes, it does seem to be fairly neatly formulaic in terms of DPR, which /is/ the most easily calculated, thus most easily criticized metric with which D&D is typically flogged. ;)

But, it completely ignores versatility, the more difficult metric that organized the infamous 3.x "Class Tiers" which, really, haven't changed /that/ dramatically in 5e (apart from there being dramatically fewer classes, and the Bard really climbing).

Not see'n that so much. I mean, I /like/ that there are downtime rules, at all, but I don't see how they balance anything, they're just kinda neat.

Out of combat balance is between at-will resources (checks) which casters are at least as good at as non-casters, and rituals, which are a little more time-consuming. So, again, it's a matter of imposing some rough balance through time-pressure.

Time pressure is often how stories get moved along, yes.

I haven't seen any attempt to place the 5E Classes into "Tiers" that actually worked out like in 3.X: except maybe "Rangers, and them everyone else" as WotC has found through their surveys. Yes, magic users have lots of magical versatility: it's magic. Narratively imposed limits (i.e., having a DM) are the main part of keeping that in line, and the tools to do so have been provided.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Time pressure is often how stories get moved along, yes.
I haven't seen any attempt to place the 5E Classes into "Tiers"
They get shouted down pretty quickly, and it's not like they were ever non-controversial.
Neo-Vancian keeps the usual suspects in Tier 1 (if you transplanted neo-Vancian into 3.5, it'd make them "Tier 0" for sure), the Bard has clawed it's way up quite a bit, arguably even that high. Some sub-classes arguably belong in different Tiers, the Fighter could be said to be splayed out from Tier 5 through 3. ;) But not all that hugely different, really, because the game's /trying not to be that hugely different, really/.

Yes, magic users have lots of magical versatility: it's magic. Narratively imposed limits (i.e., having a DM) are the main part of keeping that in line, and the tools to do so have been provided.
DM fiat can keep /anything/ in line, sure. ::shrug::


Yes but magic (in the form of rituals and even powers) in the game gave more versatility to casters in 4e as well... so how did 4e solve this
It didn't, it just didn't multiply it LFQW factors. Like I said, not perfect.

The versatility disparity was there from 1st level. Fighter got defender class features, skills. The Wizard got controller class features (which, itself, gets complicated), skills, plus cantrips, plus rituals.
(Now, TBF, rituals cost to cast made them little more than a license to use a specific expendable item, and with wealth/level & make/buy, the fighter had quite the range of expendables, too.)
And, there was inherently less versatility in martial exploits - which were always weapon-keyword, virtually never typed damage, mostly attacked AC, typically melee/range, limited when Close & rarely area, and more combat-focused when utilities - than prayers or spells which had numerous damage types, were frequently range/area, imposed a wider range of conditions (slightly, you didn't expect to see Dominate on exploits, for instance), especially exception-based one-offs (like, oh, "I hurl you through Hell - save ends, tho"), and accomplished a wider range of effects with utilities.

But, that didn't balloon at high level in the LFQW pattern. The casters and non-casters /both/ got more options as they leveled up, so the relative versatility of those options didn't grow vastly with level.

But, if, according to you, 5e doesn't solve it because casters are more versatile?
Not /just/ for that reason, but, yes, spells & rituals are greatly upgraded (restored) in effect and versatility compared to spells & rituals in 4e.

5e /did/ focus on getting BA & DPR to line up, though. A Warlock's baseline DPR isn't obviously superior to an Archers, for instance. Single-target DPR is formulaic by slot level (& cantrips attack bonus, and save DCs by caster level) and not the most potent thing you can do with a spell. Area & multi-target DPR is another thing entirely, and once you go beyond DPR, there's vanishingly little (the odd BM trick) on the non-caster side.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top