Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7665306" data-attributes="member: 996">It is, but there is a countervailing demand for imbalance, caster dominance, and martial archetypes being modeled exclusively with low-player-agency mechanics.  The market is divided.The thing is, WotC, in conceiving and playtesting Next/5e (and watching the devastation of the edition war) figured out that though the market was divided and the two things it wanted incompatible, one side of the divide was long accustomed to having to cope with a D&D that didn't deliver what they wanted, while the other was willing to watch the whole franchise burn rather than give up what they'd had for so long.Regardless of relative size, the expedient thing to do was to cater to that side.  Witness the fact that 5e did exactly that. They were a surprisingly good one, too, in a technical sense.  But, no, I don't think the implementation was the key issue.  Any implementation that delivered balance between martial and caster archetypes would have received as virulent a reaction from the same crowd, for the same reasons - just with different buzzwords and talking points.Could you imagine, for instance, if D&D were to do away with the concept of daily caster resources, entirely?</blockquote>