Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8756409" data-attributes="member: 6799660">I agree that they don't say so. At the same time, there are many points where that position is implied. They require the same XP to level. Appropriate challenge (regardless of how well it works) is calculated by comparing opponent CRs to the party levels (with not ratios for different classes, denoting advantage to one or the other). Adventure modules are rated based on level. The very concept of tiers of play is that the gameplay style substantially changes as the party hits new levels (again, not barbarians and rogues hit new levels and full casters hit new-levels-minus-X). Thus I cannot say that all classes being equal was a design assumption, but I agree with Undrave that, if it weren't, well then fundamental components of the design make little sense (so, perhaps it would be best to say, 'if that wasn't a design assumption, perhaps it should have been'). As someone who is always suspicious of that guy on the internet who thinks that the people running their favorite thing (be it a game or fiction IP) are idiots, jerks, or deliberately screwing over fan-interest X (and that they would do a better job), I am much more willing to believe that the 5e devs miss-playtested a few higher-level spells and misjudged the playstyle the fans would prefer (/their willingness to use the optional rules to address the situation if they preferred otherwise), and overall missed a few minor beats than I am to believe that they are either 1) deliberately favoring casters but declining to say so, or 2) designed a system where they knowingly made different classes have different power levels, but left fundamental components of the game architecture based on making comparisons to the party level, class-neutrally.</blockquote>

Verification