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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7223341" data-attributes="member: 996">4e & 5e both conspicuously used 'Tier' for groupings of levels, so there's that. [sblock="Well, sure, inevitably so."]  I mean, first you barely-kinda-sorta-almost balance classses by taking away almost all the Tier 1 & 2 casters' daily spells, giving them a handful of encounters and a pair of at-wills as nothing like compensation for it, then turn around and give all the non-casters comparable resources.  Then, you give the casters back all their dailies, take away most of the encounters, but let 'em keep the at-wills, let them all cast spontaneously, and take almost everything away from the non-casters.  That's not a recipe for balance.  Nor is 'classic feel' exactly a goal that requires balance:  the game was notoriously imbalanced in its classic form, that created a definite feel, a feel which 5e does a great job of evoking.But the point of Class Tiers really boiled down to versatility, in particular, and 5e casters, since they all cast spontaneously, are not exactly lacking in that department, even relative to 3e.  OTOH, to drop anyone below Tier 3 you'd have to rank sub-classes, rather than classes, with casting of one sort or another so prevalent, and even then, the few benighted sub-classes that lack versatility almost entirely put in solid DPR performances, keeping them out of the last two bad-at-even-what-you're-good-at Tiers. [/sblock]But I think it was just a broader point about random roll as a method, that, sure, it's not balanced, but neither was a lot of other stuff in D&D, and people managed to have fun with it anyway. Join the club.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification