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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blackbrrd" data-source="post: 6171241" data-attributes="member: 63962">I think the most interesting part of your post here is the number of monsters that have a viable ranged alternative. I don't think there are many monsters in that class, and it's one of the reasons that I prefer playing a specialized melee character instead of a melee/ranged hybrid. This is only true for the non-casters though. For casters in 3.5 you often had so strong options that the need for specialization is a lot lower. It's one of the reasons the blaster is a good alternative in 3.5, even if the save-or-die monkey is better (both mixing in utility spells).3.5 had some wonky features, like a lot of monsters being immune to sneak attack (rendering rogues close to useless) or monsters with high DR making archers and twf characters very sub optimal. The character that didn't suffer from any of these problems is the thf. 4e actually did away with this to a large degree and it's one of the big improvements in my opinion. There is a reason the Wizard in 4e is called a "controller" instead of a striker. Now you can make a decent blaster out of the wizard in 4e, but it's a specialized Wizard, not the one you end up unless you put some work into it.Anyway, I don't see any problem with them reducing the blasting power in 5e compared to 3.5, making it more in line with 4e. Instead let the wizard fill the niche of the utility character - always useful, instead of the all powerful character he was. This leaves a lot more room for powerful non-casters, or non-casters that don't have to specialize into melee brutes to be effective.Let the player who wants to play a blaster in 5e give up some of the utility, making you sacrifice if you want to be a specialist. If they do, I think there will be easier for players to make well-rounded characters instead of the typical specialists you got in 3.5.... Personally, I much prefer playing the generalist, but I only think it's ok if I stay within 70-80% effectiveness of the specialist [in their specialized field]. If the delta is too large, I would rather play a specialist.</blockquote>

Verification