Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="happyhermit" data-source="post: 6885478" data-attributes="member: 6834463">I guess there are still weird things going on with the forum, this post just appeared for me now, along with a notification.It is possible to say that every choice is viable (no matter how it affects effectiveness), but then mechanical balance becomes rather meaningless as well. Making sub-optimal choices was very possible in 4e and it could decrease a characters relative effectiveness to a much greater degree than in 5e.This is actually not valid. RAW, a PC did not really &quot;get better&quot; at things through leveling because of scaling DCs, and defenses.That first statement is ridiculous and dismissive. There is a huge difference between not continually boosting a stat and &quot;dumping your prime requisite&quot;. There are many reasons a player might want to boost other stats besides optimization, as I am sure you are aware.No, not &quot;silly&quot;, I saw intelligent people make a fighter and think that since they were proficient in it, they would be reasonably effective with it. If one is not familiar with the fact that in 4e, simply &quot;attacking with a weapon&quot; is a very suboptimal move, or if one doesn't search through all the available powers that can be gained, then it is reasonable to assume a &quot;fighter&quot; as described would not be comparatively terrible with one of the weapons they start out proficient with. Obviously a new player wanting to use a bow right away as there primary weapon will realize this sooner than one who assumes that they will be able to switch later or in certain situations.That isn't true, the previous example is one among MANY, and it shows that what you really mean is &quot;as long as you start with the concept that fits the channel&quot;. Even still it isn't true, as making suboptimal choices, like diversifying your character or not taking the right ASI or feats will cause you to take a huge hit to your effectiveness. It can make a big difference when one is referring to a paradigm that was an essential part of one system, but not in another.&nbsp; If anything, the abandonment of formal Role/Source, and reduction in non-casting/non-magical options further illustrates the point... that martial/spellcaster classes is a false dichotomy in 5e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="happyhermit, post: 6885478, member: 6834463"] I guess there are still weird things going on with the forum, this post just appeared for me now, along with a notification. It is possible to say that every choice is viable (no matter how it affects effectiveness), but then mechanical balance becomes rather meaningless as well. Making sub-optimal choices was very possible in 4e and it could decrease a characters relative effectiveness to a much greater degree than in 5e. This is actually not valid. RAW, a PC did not really "get better" at things through leveling because of scaling DCs, and defenses. That first statement is ridiculous and dismissive. There is a huge difference between not continually boosting a stat and "dumping your prime requisite". There are many reasons a player might want to boost other stats besides optimization, as I am sure you are aware. No, not "silly", I saw intelligent people make a fighter and think that since they were proficient in it, they would be reasonably effective with it. If one is not familiar with the fact that in 4e, simply "attacking with a weapon" is a very suboptimal move, or if one doesn't search through all the available powers that can be gained, then it is reasonable to assume a "fighter" as described would not be comparatively terrible with one of the weapons they start out proficient with. Obviously a new player wanting to use a bow right away as there primary weapon will realize this sooner than one who assumes that they will be able to switch later or in certain situations. That isn't true, the previous example is one among MANY, and it shows that what you really mean is "as long as you start with the concept that fits the channel". Even still it isn't true, as making suboptimal choices, like diversifying your character or not taking the right ASI or feats will cause you to take a huge hit to your effectiveness. It can make a big difference when one is referring to a paradigm that was an essential part of one system, but not in another. If anything, the abandonment of formal Role/Source, and reduction in non-casting/non-magical options further illustrates the point... that martial/spellcaster classes is a false dichotomy in 5e. [/QUOTE]

Verification