NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 8855143" data-attributes="member: 6690965">I've found most of what A5E has done pretty orthogonal to the problem? There is definitely some improvement to martial utility from exploration knacks, and the in-combat experience of playing a martial character is improved by the increased decision points maneuvers offer, but the fundamentals aren't really any different.The exploration/journey game with the attendant Supply rules are great and I definitely like them a lot, but that's a whole different minigame that doesn't really touch on the general problems solving capacity of spells, so much as give every class something else to do in a new arena and encourage a new play loop.I've long held this is a fighter side problem though, and that's only worse in any 5e derived environment. The usual changes everyone asks for is pushing casters to largely interact with the skill system, and that's not an area A5E made any real changes. Skills are still largely undefined and mostly reactive things players roll as challenges are thrown at them, instead of abilities they leverage to do things. Fundamentally, the thing casters are doing, allocating limited resource to overcome challenges (in the form of spell slots) is a better gameplay loop with more proactive player agency.We can quibble about the exact utility of spells (e.g. at what level should consistent flight becoming normative?), but until every class has that level of declarative cachet, the problem will continue. "Fighter" hasn't generally proven an archetype people are willing to give anywhere near sufficient power to, and I think that suggests it's the problem.</blockquote>

Verification