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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5970472" data-attributes="member: 2067">So, Mearls seems to be saying: "If you like a game where casters dominate, you can have that. If you want a game where casters suck, you can have that. It's in your hands as a DM. We give you a rough parity, tell you why it's there, and it's up to you to figure out if you want to deviate from that or not."It's an interesting non-solution. Presumably, stuff like the Caves of Chaos reactive-adventure advice is in play to help DMs judge how they want to bone their players (or not).[sblock=Caves of Chaos Advice][/sblock]I'm fond of the flexibility, but I'm not sure they don't need a slightly heavier hand here at least as an option. So many people are so utterly terrified of the hint of a specter of a possibility of a vancian spellcaster being slightly more situationally effective than another class that there probably needs to be a bigger and more impressive shiny red button you can press that will easily give you the "You Don't Need To Worry About Wizards" effect in a very obvious way. I think it might also be worth explaining to people why and how this track is being taken. Being Freaked Out About Wizards is practically a part-time job for a good segment of the D&D audience. It's not something 5e has earned trust on yet (despite the main complaint against the playtest wizard being along the lines of "It casts spells TOO OFTEN!"). Coming out and saying "Wizards might dominate if you don't keep DETAILED CAREFUL CONTROL OF YOUR ENCOUNTERS IN A DAY!!!!" isn't reassuring. I might have to try and take a stab at this...</blockquote>

Verification