Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Martials should just get free feats
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 8984154" data-attributes="member: 7030563"><p>Agree, but stating that the Wizard is the supreme caster means explicitly that all classes are not balanced. Specifically - Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Artificer, Warlock and Paladin are all casters and the Wizard is superior to them.</p><p></p><p>Now you can argue that it does not say explicitly in the text descriptions that Wizards are superior to Fighters, Barbarians and Rogues, but your statement was "all" characters are balanced according to explicit and implicit claims and in actuality the explicit text in the Wizard class is that they are supreme among 8 of the classes and therefore it is explicit that not all characters are balanced.</p><p></p><p>At best your argument is Rogues, Barbarians and Fighters are implicitly balanced with Wizards, while the others aren't, but I don't know of any text that actually implies this anywhere in the PHB.</p><p></p><p>Finally playing a weak class does not mean that it is "bad" to be that class. You should play what is fun for you, whatever you want to play, with a group that is willing to accept that decision. </p><p></p><p>The reason the PHB does not say<em> "it is bad to play a fighter"</em> because it is not bad to play a fighter and I am not stating that it is bad to play one, or any class if you want to. You should play what you want to play with a group willing to accept that decision.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I don't play Barbarians or Druids at all and I very rarely play Bards. That doesn't make those classes "bad" to play and in fact Druid and Bard are both more powerful than Monks and Fighters which I play often.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It absolutely is made explicit when you consider the spells and class abilities. These are explicit rules.</p><p></p><p>The Wizard class has mechanics written in the PHB that state he gets to learn 2 9th level spells at 17th level, those two spells can include Wish, and the spell table shows that he can cast a 9th level spell once a day .... in addition to all the other spells and the copy he can make of himself with a lower level spell!</p><p></p><p>The PHB explicity states that Wizards get those powers. The PHB does not offer anything remotely comparable for a fighter. That alone explicitly shows a Wizard is more powerful than a fighter.</p><p></p><p>It is right there in the PHB. It is the explicit and undeniable promise made by the rules themselves - Wizards are more powerful than fighters at 17th level.</p><p></p><p>How could you interpret the mechanics any other way?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Where is this promise? Provide a reference in the game rules please. I gave two explicit examples above where the opposite is actually stated or shown.</p><p></p><p>It does not need fixing at all, it needs to stay unbalanced. Balance sucks the life out of the game IME.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think party composition is huge and to think it isn't is to suggest there is no value in diversity. The CR tables are an estimate based on an average party which includes a mix of both "strong" and "weak" classes as well as strong and weak builds among those classes. Regardless of individual class strength, a diverse party will generally fare better than a non-diverse party even when class strength is taken into account.</p><p></p><p>If this myth about CR indicating class balance were true any party of a certain level should fare the exact same against every monster of the same CR. So whether the party is a diverse mix or classes or it is a party made up only of Monks or a party made up only of Rogues or a party made up only of Wizards - if you believe what you CR implys equality then all four of these examples should do just as well if they are all of the same level.</p><p></p><p>Further, experienced players operating with good teamwork will generally destroy those CR tables beating deadly encounters with relative ease, even while playing "weak" classes or "weak" builds. Meanwhile inexperienced players or even experienced partys that are not coordinated and do not leverage the particular party strengths will get slaughtered in those same encounters. That is far more important than the builds or the classes themselves.</p><p></p><p>If there is an implicit promise that the game falls short on delivering it is that "deadly encounters" or "easy encounters" are actually deadly or easy at those levels.</p><p></p><p>Finally, if we are comparing fighters and wizards - a party made entirely of fighters will actually fare better in some encounters than a party made entirely of wizards against certain enemies. Not many but some.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ECMO3, post: 8984154, member: 7030563"] Agree, but stating that the Wizard is the supreme caster means explicitly that all classes are not balanced. Specifically - Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Artificer, Warlock and Paladin are all casters and the Wizard is superior to them. Now you can argue that it does not say explicitly in the text descriptions that Wizards are superior to Fighters, Barbarians and Rogues, but your statement was "all" characters are balanced according to explicit and implicit claims and in actuality the explicit text in the Wizard class is that they are supreme among 8 of the classes and therefore it is explicit that not all characters are balanced. At best your argument is Rogues, Barbarians and Fighters are implicitly balanced with Wizards, while the others aren't, but I don't know of any text that actually implies this anywhere in the PHB. Finally playing a weak class does not mean that it is "bad" to be that class. You should play what is fun for you, whatever you want to play, with a group that is willing to accept that decision. The reason the PHB does not say[I] "it is bad to play a fighter"[/I] because it is not bad to play a fighter and I am not stating that it is bad to play one, or any class if you want to. You should play what you want to play with a group willing to accept that decision. Personally, I don't play Barbarians or Druids at all and I very rarely play Bards. That doesn't make those classes "bad" to play and in fact Druid and Bard are both more powerful than Monks and Fighters which I play often. It absolutely is made explicit when you consider the spells and class abilities. These are explicit rules. The Wizard class has mechanics written in the PHB that state he gets to learn 2 9th level spells at 17th level, those two spells can include Wish, and the spell table shows that he can cast a 9th level spell once a day .... in addition to all the other spells and the copy he can make of himself with a lower level spell! The PHB explicity states that Wizards get those powers. The PHB does not offer anything remotely comparable for a fighter. That alone explicitly shows a Wizard is more powerful than a fighter. It is right there in the PHB. It is the explicit and undeniable promise made by the rules themselves - Wizards are more powerful than fighters at 17th level. How could you interpret the mechanics any other way? Where is this promise? Provide a reference in the game rules please. I gave two explicit examples above where the opposite is actually stated or shown. It does not need fixing at all, it needs to stay unbalanced. Balance sucks the life out of the game IME. I think party composition is huge and to think it isn't is to suggest there is no value in diversity. The CR tables are an estimate based on an average party which includes a mix of both "strong" and "weak" classes as well as strong and weak builds among those classes. Regardless of individual class strength, a diverse party will generally fare better than a non-diverse party even when class strength is taken into account. If this myth about CR indicating class balance were true any party of a certain level should fare the exact same against every monster of the same CR. So whether the party is a diverse mix or classes or it is a party made up only of Monks or a party made up only of Rogues or a party made up only of Wizards - if you believe what you CR implys equality then all four of these examples should do just as well if they are all of the same level. Further, experienced players operating with good teamwork will generally destroy those CR tables beating deadly encounters with relative ease, even while playing "weak" classes or "weak" builds. Meanwhile inexperienced players or even experienced partys that are not coordinated and do not leverage the particular party strengths will get slaughtered in those same encounters. That is far more important than the builds or the classes themselves. If there is an implicit promise that the game falls short on delivering it is that "deadly encounters" or "easy encounters" are actually deadly or easy at those levels. Finally, if we are comparing fighters and wizards - a party made entirely of fighters will actually fare better in some encounters than a party made entirely of wizards against certain enemies. Not many but some. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Martials should just get free feats
Top