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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6169757" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Dausuul, this is probably the most useful post to me in this whole thread.One thing I disliked about 4e was the "PC's follow different rules than their opponents" approach.  That's a style difference,  not "right" or "wrong", but my preference.  It seems like the monsters don't get to save  but the PC's get to be much more resistant to their counterattacks.  That said, I think it would be appropriate for saves to be much more difficult across the board - given the reduction in spell slots, less spells more likely to succeed seems like a fair tradeoff.  With 1 spell each of your best four levels, having them fail half the time would be an exercise in frustration, so making saves unlikely seems much more equitable. Seems like Slow is pretty effective - if I can move and attack (even if that attack is one arrow doing 1d6) and my opponent can move or attack and has no ranged attacks, I'm eventually going to win (unless I run out of arrows first).  That said, it sounds like the approach taken has been to move the more effective spells down.  My concern is first that the various spellcaster options be balanced against one another, and second that they be balanced against other types of characters (ie non-spellcasters).  It sounds like this is a viable approach, and that the non-Blast spells have been downgraded (at least for non-specialists in that type of spell), which is a means of better equalizing Blasts and non-Blasts.Sounds like the options are at least closer to balance, which should be the goal.  But, to me, "a big gang of weak foes" is the sweet spot for Fireballs and the like, so perhaps the scenario allows those spells to be overly effective.  I hope the test packets are providing a wide variety of encounter types to ensure a broad playtest.In any case, thanks for this useful info - it clarifies a lot of the issues for me, anyway.I question "new edition", but I've questioned that since 3e - the "new editions" from that point on (2 to 3; 3 to 4) seem more like new games, with 3.5 and perhaps essentials in 4e being more like "same game, new edition" and 3e, 4e seeming more like "same name, new game".  Looks like 5e will follow the latter approach.</blockquote>

Verification