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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vaslov" data-source="post: 6331686" data-attributes="member: 37953">To the original OP I believe there is a flaw in your approach to this analysis.  Before I get to that, I have to admit I had a bit of a knee jerk reaction to it.  My first though was thinking on how this couldn't be.  It went along the lines of trying to address it using the same approach you suggested.  It went something like - A high level wizard cast knock.  A high level fighter bashes a door down with his mighty weapon.- A high level wizard cast teleport.  A high level fighter jumps on his flying carpet/war dragon she beat into submission / into his mirror of mental prowess.- A high level wizard nags about how "the pen is mightier than the sword".  A high level warrior gives pithy Heinlein quotes like "“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.” You get the idea.  It seemed off.  It's the same old argument D&D players have had probably since the very first session.  Just off your point.  Then I started to think about how other game systems work with social combat mechanics and limited spell counts for casters.  There are games that do it quite well.  That's when the flaw occurred to me.  Your point system requires there to be a mechanic for a point.  Sure you weight some mechanics heavier than others, but the fundamental assumption seems to be defined mechanic equals point which equals more player options/power.  Only if fighter has more defined mechanical options could they possibly compete with the wizard in class power. D&D by it's very history has always had more mechanics for casters.  In fact, I would argue the rules purposely does by design.  That is exactly some of the flavor the designers were going for.  While it may seem counter-intuitive this is what some (not all) are looking for.  We all know more spells will be added.  And feats, classes and who knows what else some brilliant young designer out there has.  I doubt it will ever be balanced in its count. I am by no means trying to advocate that no other options should be there.  The point is that a balance in the number of rules should not be the point.  The point should be does the rules enable the game you are looking to play.  Time will tell if 5e hits the mark or not.  In the games I have played the rule count by class has not played a noticeable factor.  YMMV. In the mean time my fighter is going to go pick a fight with the party mage.  Clearly I need to keep him in combat to make sure he doesn't get a chance to show off with all that fancy utility spell power.  Damn glory hound.  (in case it isn't clear this last comment is a joke). Vaslov</blockquote>

Verification