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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8266760" data-attributes="member: 18">Er, given how many times people who liked 4E were told they were objectively wrong, I don't think you have a leg to stand on here, mate. This basically a Balor calling a Pit Fiend "evil" lol. As the other poster said, this has always been a thing, and 4E players bore the brunt of it more than any other group.This is a really silly argument.The first point re: debuff, crowd control etc. is illogical and irrational. It doesn't make sense on a basic level. It's immaterial how casters worked in previous editions. Totally immaterial. It only matters how they work in the current edition. And the crowd control and debuff effects are well-balanced in 5E. Were they ridiculously overpowered in say, 2E? Sure, but again, that's immaterial.Concentration likewise, is a totally irrational point. Even it wasn't irrational to consider previous editions, you're ignoring how spell interruption worked in those. Concentration is significantly more favourable to casters than previous editions. Any spell that doesn't involve Concentration cannot be interrupted in casting in 5E. That's huge! But you think that's a limitation? That's just wrong. And Concentration only applies to one spell at once, and whilst it could do with a couple of tweaks, it's not crippling.As for your final point, it's obviously nonsensical, as so many spells have broad applications, and it's a ridiculous point because it invokes a trope that doesn't apply here. If you have 15 different "Lame powers", the reality is, you're probably extremely powerful. The trope only works if you have just a single power (or very few).That's because you're ignoring how D&D actually works in favour of concluding that a few bonuses to some skill rolls are what it takes to be "good outside of combat".Yes. They're called spells - welcome to D&D. Come on, you know this.You've got a very carefully min-maxed Fighter of a very specific level, and you're trying to make out "this is how it is". You know how disingenuous that is. You've got piles of ultra-specific choices to try and achieve "Fighter who is good outside of combat", and even then, he's suffering from MAD, and only "okay" outside of combat. There are games where he'd be great, and he's the sort of character I play, but the idea that he compares to a caster is not reasonable, especially if you're running 1 hour short rests and lucky to get 2/day, and the idea that he's representative of how Fighters are generally is obviously false.People have been pulling out the strawman of "What if someone doesn't want to be good at anything but fighting!!!" as if this is some kind of excuse for 5E failing Fighters and indeed all non-casters to some extent outside the combat pillar, but it's nonsensical stuff. There are players who want simple mechanics and so on, sure, but there are not any meaningful number of players who just want their PCs to not very useful in a lot of scenes (and the martials shouldn't be bearing the brunt of that either - why make Fighters weak outside of combat, when a Sorcerer could equally just only choose combat spells?), especially if they're not dominant in others either.</blockquote>

Verification