Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5910808" data-attributes="member: 3400">I can see we're running into some serious style issues here. Yes, players want to play with the PCs they've built, but they can also push the issue too far in expecting everything to cater to how they've built their PCs. There's a balancing point between a GM adapting the campaign to his players and the player adapting to the challenges of the campaign. Different styles of play obviously put that balance points in different places. For example, from my perspective on style, any dwarf fighter who plinks away at a flying target with futility because he can't charge has overspecialized. Sucks to be him. Will he learn from the experience?I think the question remains whether it really is a 3rd rate option. In 1e, when those magic-users were out of spells, they were often still fairly effective tossing darts at a high rate of speed. Their attack tables were pretty much right in the thick of things with every other class. As they leveled up and fell behind, they got more spells as well. So I wouldn't call that a third rate default option at all. 3e isn't really that much different, in part, because wizards have a better attack progression than in 1e and can invest in feats like PB shot and Precise shot, which also help their rays as well as firing with a crossbow. Again, I don't call that a 3rd rate default option. I've seen it used fairly effectively. Granted, I think the mix Paizo took with PF is an even better one since you can use selected cantrips all day. They typically don't do as much damage as the crossbow, but they afford the PC more mobility since they don't have to keep reloading and they hit with a touch AC rather than full AC.But with this in mind, I think Lanefan's observation is a good one. To balance magic, you can make it tough to cast and comparatively rare but powerful or you can make it more common and a lot weaker. Those are legitimate tradeoffs in the art of the game's design. I naturally prefer the former because the latter generally makes magic less, well, magic and intrinsically interesting as something different from the mundane ways of putting the hurt on your target. If there aren't potential encounter modifiers (including enders), just more hp attrition, what's the good of doing things magically in the first place? Every tool increasingly resembles a hammer.</blockquote>

Verification