Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7392270" data-attributes="member: 996">No, spoken /about/ 5th edition.&nbsp; The contrast between the power displayed by Gandalf in genre vs higher level wizards in D&amp;D (eg &quot;Gandalf was a 5th level Magic-User) is quite pronounced, whether you're talking 0e, 1e, 3.x, or 5e.&nbsp;It is the problem it used to be, in kind, just not quite as bad in extent.&nbsp; Fighters in 5e start wondering why they bother showing up around 13th or 15th instead of 7th (3.5) or 12th (1e).&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Nod.&nbsp; The issue was fixxed, the fix rejected and the issue triumphantly re-introduced in a slightly toned-down form.&nbsp; Acknowledging both that it's still an issue, and that it's an issue dear enough to the hearts of enough D&amp;Ders that 5e intentionally built it back into the core rules is only fair.&nbsp; It's not going to be 'fixed' in the standard game, it can't be fixed by adding a balanced martial class (maybe 4, completely obsoleting the Fighter &amp; Rogue in the process), but it should at least be acknowledged.&nbsp; It'd require introducing some sort of 'martial power' supplement that replaces the fighter, rogue &amp; berserker with a set of martial classes amped up to the level of casters.&nbsp; Or a 'low-magic' setting that replaces casters with something nerfed to the point that it would look up at the 3.0 Adept in awe.&nbsp; 5e is imbalanced the way it is, by design, to evoke the (probably at the time) accidental imbalances of the early game, that, going uncorrected for so long, have become enshrined as tradition or 'classic feel.'&nbsp; If we play D&amp;D at all, it's because we exploit, revel in, enjoy, accept, tolerate, are in denial of, feel nostalgic for, or just like complaining about that, not because we really want or expect it to change.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7392270, member: 996"] No, spoken /about/ 5th edition. The contrast between the power displayed by Gandalf in genre vs higher level wizards in D&D (eg "Gandalf was a 5th level Magic-User) is quite pronounced, whether you're talking 0e, 1e, 3.x, or 5e. It is the problem it used to be, in kind, just not quite as bad in extent. Fighters in 5e start wondering why they bother showing up around 13th or 15th instead of 7th (3.5) or 12th (1e). Nod. The issue was fixxed, the fix rejected and the issue triumphantly re-introduced in a slightly toned-down form. Acknowledging both that it's still an issue, and that it's an issue dear enough to the hearts of enough D&Ders that 5e intentionally built it back into the core rules is only fair. It's not going to be 'fixed' in the standard game, it can't be fixed by adding a balanced martial class (maybe 4, completely obsoleting the Fighter & Rogue in the process), but it should at least be acknowledged. It'd require introducing some sort of 'martial power' supplement that replaces the fighter, rogue & berserker with a set of martial classes amped up to the level of casters. Or a 'low-magic' setting that replaces casters with something nerfed to the point that it would look up at the 3.0 Adept in awe. 5e is imbalanced the way it is, by design, to evoke the (probably at the time) accidental imbalances of the early game, that, going uncorrected for so long, have become enshrined as tradition or 'classic feel.' If we play D&D at all, it's because we exploit, revel in, enjoy, accept, tolerate, are in denial of, feel nostalgic for, or just like complaining about that, not because we really want or expect it to change. [/QUOTE]

Verification