Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7540732" data-attributes="member: 12731">There are several areas of the game where the designers seem to merely coast on the collective wisdom of us gamers, than actually making sure the respective "truth" is actually true.Disclaimer: Do note that in games that aren't actually challenging, none of this matters. So if you aren't playing in a campaign where the difficulty actually rewards optimal builds, this thread isn't for you.Here are a few examples, and you can fill in with your own. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />---"When you play a martial, choosing a slow build is just as viable as choosing a fast one."FALSE:  5E does not actually reward build choices that result in a slow character to nearly the extent needed to counteract the immense tactical benefit of choosing a fast character. (In other words, Speed is too cheap)"Choosing a melee build is just as viable as choosing a ranged one."FALSE:  5E does not actually reward build choices that result in a character with no reach/range to nearly the extent needed to counteract the immense tactical benefit of choosing a character with 60 ft range or more. (In other words, Range is too cheap)For Rogues this is doubly true. The game does not provide a single compelling reason why you should risk your frail ass in close combat when all your abilities work just as well from 30 feet away. Better in fact, since hiding is much easier at range.Taken together, it isn't even funny how much better a fast ranged character is than a slow melee one. (Reasons why this is so? Too numerous to enumerate, but it does begin somewhere with the decision to elevate Dexterity to god stat, and with the simple truth that the overwhelming majority of Monster Manual critters are very simplistic, with few ways to attack characters that outrun them)."Choosing a melee build is just as viable without feats as with them."FALSE:  Please. Without feats, melee/Strength is plain broken/useless. Rogues, Warlocks etc provide BETTER DPR at range than a feat-less melee bruiser. So the party is much better off staying mobile and never actually allowing the monsters to close in.(That's actually true with feats as well, but I digress)"Choosing to play a Rogue is just as viable with feats as without them."FALSE:  Nope. Not even close. Without feats, the sneak attack of Rogues is actually quite decent. But there is no feat that doubles sneak damage, as there are feats to double fighter damage. Q.E.D.(Don't tell me you're not playing a Rogue for its DPR. If you do, my answer is "then you're fine with a featless game, and I'll play a Rogue".)"Choosing the wizard class is the best choice for an arcane caster."FALSE:  In actual fact, 5E has done away with almost every reason to choose the Wizard, compared to editions of old. (I'm not necessarily saying this is bad, just that it is)In the beginning, of course, the Wizard was the only class with access to arcane spells. Then it was the only class with flexible access to all the arcane spells. But now? Adventures no longer assume a wizard or even wizard-like character in parties. The era of Monte Cook is over: no longer do scenarios come to a screeching halt when the party is unable to cast a particular high-level spell. (Clerics and Druids don't have access to these formerly "arcane" spells. Sorcerers and Warlocks might have them on their spell lists, but can never afford to pick spells they aren't using all the time. That leaves Lore Bards.)That the Wizard is simply LFQWBBQ better than anyone else is a truism that refuses to go away. But in 5E, it simply doesn't have the power. And its flexibility (that is no longer a must) comes at a very high cost. Sure there exists a very small selection of awesome school powers, but other than that? Besides, official adventures hand out very few spellbooks, and then seldom at low levels, so apart from the high levels few play at, is its flexibility even a real thing?Playing a Wizard is fun, don't get me wrong. Compared to the drawbacks of the class design of the Sorcerer, for instance: to spamming the same spells over and over again, choosing the same old red draconic Sorcerer again and again. But is it actually good? The jury is out on that one.</blockquote>

Verification