Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8761546" data-attributes="member: 72555">4e attempted to make the Martial types and the Spellcaster types balanced.To that end, Martial types gained many cool things they could do to impact the game narrative beyond &quot;I swing a sword and deal HP damage&quot;, and resource management to limit their tool use.On the other hand, Spellcaster types had their world-altering abilities filed away (wish, etc), and their game narrative impact abilities reduced to something similar to what the Martial PCs had.Both had access to similar non-combat engines (skill challenges, rituals) that could be used to enact larger world-scale-altering effects, but neither had them by fiat.There was a massive backlash.&nbsp; 5e was (in part) a response to that backlash.Fighters where intentionally reduced back towards dealing HP damage and losing narrative control, and spellcasters where intentionally given back world-scale-altering abilities.The champion fighter in 5e only has &quot;I hit and damage it&quot; fiat abilities.&nbsp; The BM has very limited non-&quot;I hit and damage it&quot; fiat abilities.The wizard regained wish, demiplane, clone, magic jar, and abilities of similar scale.The math work in 4e (AC/ATK/HP/Damage/etc) was retained in 5e with a fresh coat of paint and covered with OD&amp;D seasoning....The thing to watch out for is the assumptions of wizard supremacy.What is going on is that the Wizard and Fighter both start out at roughly the same level of competence, but the Wizard is more amenable to a higher level of optimization.&nbsp; The Fighter, when optimized, does more damage; the Wizard, when optimized, rewrites the game narrative.BUT: If you pick relatively random abilities, subclasses, spells for each, you won't usually even see this effect.I mean, for every wish spell, there is a weird spell; a 9th level AOE 22 damage per turn fear spell.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 8761546, member: 72555"] 4e attempted to make the Martial types and the Spellcaster types balanced. To that end, Martial types gained many cool things they could do to impact the game narrative beyond "I swing a sword and deal HP damage", and resource management to limit their tool use. On the other hand, Spellcaster types had their world-altering abilities filed away (wish, etc), and their game narrative impact abilities reduced to something similar to what the Martial PCs had. Both had access to similar non-combat engines (skill challenges, rituals) that could be used to enact larger world-scale-altering effects, but neither had them by fiat. There was a massive backlash. 5e was (in part) a response to that backlash. Fighters where [B]intentionally[/B] reduced back towards dealing HP damage and losing narrative control, and spellcasters where [B]intentionally[/B] given back world-scale-altering abilities. The champion fighter in 5e only has "I hit and damage it" fiat abilities. The BM has very limited non-"I hit and damage it" fiat abilities. The wizard regained wish, demiplane, clone, magic jar, and abilities of similar scale. The math work in 4e (AC/ATK/HP/Damage/etc) was retained in 5e with a fresh coat of paint and covered with OD&D seasoning. ... The thing to watch out for is the assumptions of wizard supremacy. What is going on is that the Wizard and Fighter both start out at roughly the same level of competence, but the Wizard is more amenable to a higher level of optimization. The Fighter, when optimized, does more damage; the Wizard, when optimized, rewrites the game narrative. BUT: If you pick relatively random abilities, subclasses, spells for each, you won't usually even see this effect. I mean, for every wish spell, there is a weird spell; a 9th level AOE 22 damage per turn fear spell. [/QUOTE]

Verification