Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8953234" data-attributes="member: 18">No-one is suggesting either of these things needs to be the case, though, are they? Not a single person on this board has ever suggested either AFAIK.So I think hyperbole like that is unhelpful to the discussion re: balance.5E actually isn't too bad re: combat balance. Only 4E did better. At least up to the low teen levels, full casters for example aren't &quot;outright better&quot; than non-casters in actual combat, unless you're doing like, 2-3 encounters/day specifically and they know it.The issue is that full casters generally do well in all three pillars - some do amazing - whereas the non-casters typically do less well outside combat. At best they might do well in one of the other pillars, but that's far from assured, especially given their lack of &quot;fiat&quot; abilities. 1D&amp;D's rules/class changes, so far, make absolutely zero improvement to this. In fact they arguably make the problem worse by making all casters preparation casters, casting from new, even bigger lists, which increases the strength of casters outside combat.That's really the entire balance issue with 5E - play a full caster and you get to participate in the whole game. Play other classes and you get to participate in some of the game. It didn't have to be that way - it's purely down to the legacy/sacred cow decision to give casters incredibly broad utility in their spell lists.What's particularly sad is the easiest, cheapest &quot;fix&quot; would have been to make all casters spontaneous rather than prep, forcing people to make real decisions about what they could cast, and to chop the spell lists down a bit, but they went the precise opposite way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8953234, member: 18"] No-one is suggesting either of these things needs to be the case, though, are they? Not a single person on this board has ever suggested either AFAIK. So I think hyperbole like that is unhelpful to the discussion re: balance. 5E actually isn't too bad re: combat balance. Only 4E did better. At least up to the low teen levels, full casters for example aren't "outright better" than non-casters in actual combat, unless you're doing like, 2-3 encounters/day specifically and they know it. The issue is that full casters generally do well in all three pillars - some do amazing - whereas the non-casters typically do less well outside combat. At best they might do well in one of the other pillars, but that's far from assured, especially given their lack of "fiat" abilities. 1D&D's rules/class changes, so far, make absolutely zero improvement to this. In fact they arguably make the problem worse by making all casters preparation casters, casting from new, even bigger lists, which increases the strength of casters outside combat. That's really the entire balance issue with 5E - play a full caster and you get to participate in the whole game. Play other classes and you get to participate in some of the game. It didn't have to be that way - it's purely down to the legacy/sacred cow decision to give casters incredibly broad utility in their spell lists. What's particularly sad is the easiest, cheapest "fix" would have been to make all casters spontaneous rather than prep, forcing people to make real decisions about what they could cast, and to chop the spell lists down a bit, but they went the precise opposite way. [/QUOTE]

Verification