Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8762025" data-attributes="member: 6790260">IMO, the first and second are only half-true. IMO, #3 isn't true at all, but as requested, I'll leave that aside.But it's important to note, "it was designed that way" does not mean "the designers knowingly wanted it that way." Instead, it could be subconscious bias. From Rob Heinsoo's interview about the design for 4e, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090603102932/http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4spot/20090313" target="_blank">archived here</a>, we can see how this almost happened even then:We have little reason to doubt him...and it seems just as likely that 5e experienced the same push, but had no Heinsoo to push back.I doubt it was active effort. I truly believe the designers want a balanced game with equitable character power. But tradition, unconscious bias, and subconscious acts continuously push "magic" (read: spellcasting) higher, and thus weaken non-"magic" by comparison. Wizards, the effective "specialists" (more on that later!) in using spells, are inherently buoyed by anything which boosts magic overall.They clearly tried to both cut down on caster power (fewer slots, only cantrips auto-scale, hard to raise your spell DC, etc.) and add new limits (Concentration.) Such things are silly if the goal is greater spellcaster power. So, was it covert intent, subconscious actions/biases, or accident?I think we can rule out covert intent right away, simply on charity and respect. I just can't imagine them rubbing their hands with glee about deceiving players into thinking fighters and wizards are equal while knowing they aren't. Likewise, "accident" seems much too uncharitable. I certainly think they had some foolish accidents they should have foreseen, e.g. the "ghoul surprise," but I can't see them so foolish as to stumble butt-first into this situation. Which leaves subconscious acts and bias, augmented by "tradition" and other things. Given the Heinsoo interview, we even have precedent for this pattern.So: Yes. I 100% believe that this was "designed intentionally," but I do not believe that "intentionally" there means "we explicitly want wizards to be the best class in the game." I think that what it actually means is powering up individual spells without heed for how that powers up magic generally. That it means underestimating the power gap in past editions, and thus barely shifting casters down or non-casters up. That it reflects (long-standing) unwarranted skepticism of "always-on" power, and (likewise long-standing) unwarranted permissiveness with power gated by daily resources. That it comes from not understanding the math/stats behind features (e.g. Champion's crit range bonus is horribly weak.)As a result, I was forced to vote "any imbalance between the classes is on purpose," even though I DON'T believe it was conscious purpose. Instead, I believe that their explicit and genuine intent was NOT to make unbalanced classes, but their subconscious impulses pushed them continuously away from balance in a way that favored spellcasters over non-spellcasters.Which brings me to something I said I would cover later: wizards as the "specialist in magic" (or, rather, specialist in spellcasting.) Only Land druids can match wizards for daily spells cast. This results in de-flavoring the wizard (it gets essentially zero features to support its bookish, academia-driven, "ivory tower researcher" theme) while at the same time empowering it, which is the worst of both worlds. Spellcasting has always been very powerful. 5e very, very slightly blunted that power, without meaningfully addressing the real issue, which is that non-spellcasting characters are simply not capable of affecting the world on the same level as spellcasting characters, especially full casters.</blockquote>

Verification