Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sepulchrave II" data-source="post: 8534967" data-attributes="member: 4303">I haven't played enough 5e to see how it pans out at higher levels, but the general complaint - that &quot;shenanigans&quot; from the magic users can effectively reframe situations - seems to be a pretty edition-neutral observation.I'm sympathetic to the suggestions offered by [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] to impose limits on spellcasters (via chance of backfiring, spell interruptions, bouncing lightning bolts etc.) if their tactical utility is deemed too high, but I think the original complaint - one of &quot;shenanigans&quot; - is more about casters being uniquely equipped to drive the strategic direction of play, as spells afford more narrative control than anything within the arsenal of the martial classes.I think it's worth remembering that previous editions also emphasized - or at least allowed for - what might be called &quot;operational&quot; control: strongholds, henchmen, characters &quot;embedded&quot; within the campaign world, who can effect change on an even wider scale - I think this notion gels best with &quot;mundane&quot; types, assuming a society which operates along more-or-less humanly predictable (i.e. not magic-heavy) lines. Henchmen (for mundane types) also act as force multipliers within the action economy, maybe allowing a little more sharing of the spotlight with the casters. This sort of game might look to Birthright or Kingmaker for cues, rather than seeking to redress the strategic imbalance which higher level mundanes experience in relation to casters. Whether this emphasis is soft (RP-centric) or hard (rules-coded) is another question.Also, in writing this, I think I've just convinced myself to play 1e again.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sepulchrave II, post: 8534967, member: 4303"] I haven't played enough 5e to see how it pans out at higher levels, but the general complaint - that "shenanigans" from the magic users can effectively reframe situations - seems to be a pretty edition-neutral observation. I'm sympathetic to the suggestions offered by [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] to impose limits on spellcasters (via chance of backfiring, spell interruptions, bouncing lightning bolts etc.) [I]if[/I] their tactical utility is deemed too high, but I think the original complaint - one of "shenanigans" - is more about casters being uniquely equipped to drive the strategic direction of play, as spells afford more narrative control than anything within the arsenal of the martial classes. I think it's worth remembering that previous editions also emphasized - or at least allowed for - what might be called "operational" control: strongholds, henchmen, characters "embedded" within the campaign world, who can effect change on an even wider scale - I think this notion gels best with "mundane" types, assuming a society which operates along more-or-less humanly predictable (i.e. not magic-heavy) lines. Henchmen (for mundane types) also act as force multipliers within the action economy, maybe allowing a little more sharing of the spotlight with the casters. This sort of game might look to [I]Birthright[/I] or [I]Kingmaker[/I] for cues, rather than seeking to redress the strategic imbalance which higher level mundanes experience in relation to casters. Whether this emphasis is soft (RP-centric) or hard (rules-coded) is another question. Also, in writing this, I think I've just convinced myself to play 1e again. [/QUOTE]

Verification