Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6591882" data-attributes="member: 996">It's an easy conclusion to draw (setting aside whether it's a valid conclusion).&nbsp; Say you start with the supposition that 4e was balanced - something even people who hated it tend to agree on, even that it was somehow too balanced.&nbsp; Then look at what happened to casters.&nbsp; They got more spells to choose from, the ability to revise those choices daily and more and more powerful spells/day.&nbsp; Non-casters, OTOH, lost all their daily abilities, and went from hundreds of abilities down to a handful.&nbsp; It's hard not to conclude, from that line of reasoning, that casters ended up on top.What it ignores is multiple attacks.&nbsp; Multiple attacks were seen as problematic in modern D&amp;D design - 3.5 used declining-BAB iterative, movement-incompatible full attacks to reign them in, and 4e was even more restrictive in who got multiple attacks, how they worked, and how often they could be used.&nbsp; In 5e, multiple attacks deliver the highest DPR (because, well, they really are problematic), so non- and half-casters with them get to shine in that one area.&nbsp; Since it's the most easily quantified and analyzed sort of 'power,' it's thus equally easy to conclude (again, setting aside whether it's a valid conclusion) that classes with multiple attacks are on top.&nbsp; If you ignore everything else as too difficult to use in making comparisons.&nbsp; I'd be curious which spellcasters you think are far more effective than wizards?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6591882, member: 996"] It's an easy conclusion to draw (setting aside whether it's a valid conclusion). Say you start with the supposition that 4e was balanced - something even people who hated it tend to agree on, even that it was somehow too balanced. Then look at what happened to casters. They got more spells to choose from, the ability to revise those choices daily and more and more powerful spells/day. Non-casters, OTOH, lost all their daily abilities, and went from hundreds of abilities down to a handful. It's hard not to conclude, from that line of reasoning, that casters ended up on top. What it ignores is multiple attacks. Multiple attacks were seen as problematic in modern D&D design - 3.5 used declining-BAB iterative, movement-incompatible full attacks to reign them in, and 4e was even more restrictive in who got multiple attacks, how they worked, and how often they could be used. In 5e, multiple attacks deliver the highest DPR (because, well, they really are problematic), so non- and half-casters with them get to shine in that one area. Since it's the most easily quantified and analyzed sort of 'power,' it's thus equally easy to conclude (again, setting aside whether it's a valid conclusion) that classes with multiple attacks are on top. If you ignore everything else as too difficult to use in making comparisons. I'd be curious which spellcasters you think are far more effective than wizards? [/QUOTE]

Verification