Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 6007639" data-attributes="member: 54843">As to the broader point, the fighter's lack of strategic resources:First, you're ignoring the two new classes. Warlocks have rituals, but not nearly the range of spells of either a wizard or cleric. And sorcerers have pretty much no class abilities that apply outside of combat, much like fighters.I don't think they're going to "solve" this problem of a disparity in strategic resources (or the exploration axis or however we want to talk about "stuff that happens when nobody's rolled initiative yet"). Really, how would you? As the poster above me mentioned, why would fighters get extra backgrounds?I think the best they can do is limit the ways in which other classes excel past the fighter. For example, I think the changes to Skill Mastery are a bad idea: if the fighter wants to be the "face" of the group, he should be able to do so with a decent Cha and an appropriate background. The rogue doesn't need to be automatically better at it even with an 8 Charisma because rogues are Just That Good.Likewise, if and when clerics and wizards get Scry and Teleport and all the other spells that let them break the game, that will be a problem. But looking at the playtest so far, I don't see Spider Climb or Invisibility or Fly or any of the other low-level spells that threaten other classes' "turf." In fact, spells seem limited specifically to the stuff that nobody else could conceivably do: the cleric can speak with the dead, but he can't (yet) spy on the living; for that you need a sneaky rogue. Maybe this indicates that the scope of casters' dominance outside of combat is being carefully monitored.</blockquote>

Verification