Search results

Everything said here. I replied with quote to reinforce how right I think this post is... Especially the solutions and their simplicity...

This is on target. It is very convenient to forget that in the absence of warcaster and (for some classes) resilient-con, a spell caster would not want to be in melee. This also means that they are not up armored without multiclassing, may use shield spells more (in absence of always up...

All good thoughts. The fact that there is a debate at all is a good sign. Let's get really concrete. Let us say level 11 fighter and sorcerer is the comparison. No feats--I assume. 20 in main attributes...comparing at will damage vs at will plus resources for sorcerer. Fighter does 2d6+5...

Let's not move the goalposts :) A fighter can also mulriclass and if you use all your spells to upcast at will damage you don't have a lot of spells left. Let's stick with fighter and sorcerer level 5 or 8 or something...

OK. Yes we are all white room theorizing. But if the sorcerer uses all of their resources to do close to what a fighter does for five encounters, and the fighter has more HP and better AC and slightly does more damage, I am not seeing the problem. Sounds fairly "balanced" for those demanding...

This is a well thought out and reasoned post. I have one quibble that is significant however. If we are fighting imaginary monsters, so it goes, how can we expect reality to be represented? The fact that we mostly have normal assumptions about gravity or use swords instead of spoons as...

I think there is value in having some choices be less powerful. Granted this is a fantasy game, but how many individuals on a battlefield ran around throwing daggers? Correct, probably none. Many knights had a dagger for finishing a kill. A rogue doing sneak attack damage is another matter...

Uh...but we like our game. As an aside is all of this about the inclusion of optional rules (hint, hint)?

No disrespect to the OP...at all. But emergent play is really illuminating in this regard. When you use spells or sneak past a threat you do not need to fight, you see the value of other abilities vis a vis MOAR damage. I am not discounting martial or damage prowess but think thI OP is...

Is forcecage ever better than 70 damage? Yes. Do SMART enemies refuse to be bags of static hit points? Yes. It's really meant to be a team game where people are good at things, not necessarily the exact same things.

I don't plan to write it into my campaign and do not think anyone in the campaign would ask for it. The same can probably be said for a campaign I play in. If someone wants it it's fine. They could say their character is exceptionally close to corellon or whatever. It just doesn't scream...

I play the game to solve problems, make decisions, create characters/stories, experience drama/humor/excitement watch events unfold and to socialize. None of these are predicated on perfect balance in all endeavors. I am fine with some feats classes and skills being better in particular ways.

Those sound mutually exclusive. Isn't that interesting? I genuinely disliked 4e. Does that mean that was the wrong way to have fun? Many would disagree. Or 8 people...but you get the point. The tenor of the OP is saying this 5e is so lopsided as to be "not fun." I disagree on the "not...

I guess I am wondering how I could have played this game for decades without realizing how poor my taste is. I feel ashamed. I spent a sizable portion of my youth playing AD&D which was really poorly balanced. And now? We rediscover our youthful adventures with AD&D and all we have to show...

we used to deal with this the old fashioned way. "Kovar draws his sword and glares menacingly." And so it goes around the table. The last time it happened it went full PvP. But come on! If a character is TRULY disruptive and violates tons of norms, what self respecting warrior would allow...

Yeah--and I think all of those things are important on the front end as well. For example, I love backgrounds and such. They are not worthless by any means. However, I have found that all characters have a background (which helps me get immersed when I play at least) but they do not all end...

I would clarify in my experience gimmicks don't last, but they can sometimes add to things if they are not simply annoying. In the case I mentioned earlier, I had a puritan sort of clerical feel with a character that used odd language and had creepy appearance (for a warlock who was deceived by...

I firmly believe that there is an interaction between what you put on paper and what happens in the game. You might be pretty vanilla on paper and have something cool happen over the course of campaigns. You can also sketch out the bones of who you want to be and have that emerge in play. Or...

Unfortunately this is largely true. However, my most memorable character had an interesting appearance, odd speech pattern (think King James bible thees and thous) and while giving sermons ostensibly from a place of good (he was actually a weird warlock tricked by a fallen angel). His story...

The biggest issue is when something becomes a standard assumption. Some few elves are like corellon? Guarantee not a person in my group would choose the option. However, it's a select few or so I hear. That is easily ignored or accepted. Dwarves in your setting are 7 feet tall and hate...