Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9605758" data-attributes="member: 7030563">My experience is consistent with the other posters.&nbsp; I have never had a problem with non-casters being overshadowed and in that statement I am talking about 44 years of gaming in 4 different D&amp;D editions and with a many, many different groups both as a player and a DM.I know it is a problem for people on this forum, but it is not something I personally have had an issue with. Casters in modern versions of D&amp;D (3E, 5E, 2024) are objectively more powerful than non-casters but this has not been a problem at the tables I have played on. Experienced players that go in with eyes wide open know this when they play a non-caster class.&nbsp; I personally play a substantial number of Fighters and a ton of Rogues and Rangers.&nbsp; I also play full casters, but I play more of those three classes than I do any full caster class and when I play those classes I expect the full caster PCs at the table to be able to do those wordlbreaking things, and I don't expect my PC to do those things.&nbsp; If I wanted my PC to do those things I would have picked a full caster class.&nbsp; If being the top dog and &quot;winning&quot; the table was important I would always play a full caster.&nbsp; There are some players that want that and those players do gravitate towards full casters.Where this could conceptually be an issue is with new players who &quot;don't know any better&quot;, but it really at a practical level is not a problem there either when it comes to classes.&nbsp; If they are playing an ultra-powerful class with a party of all newbies they don't know enough&nbsp; to really overshadow anyone based on the mechanics.&nbsp; If they are playing at a mixed table with experienced players and newbies that experience is going to account for far more of this than class mechanics will.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ECMO3, post: 9605758, member: 7030563"] My experience is consistent with the other posters. I have never had a problem with non-casters being overshadowed and in that statement I am talking about 44 years of gaming in 4 different D&D editions and with a many, many different groups both as a player and a DM. I know it is a problem for people on this forum, but it is not something I personally have had an issue with. Casters in modern versions of D&D (3E, 5E, 2024) are objectively more powerful than non-casters but this has not been a problem at the tables I have played on. Experienced players that go in with eyes wide open know this when they play a non-caster class. I personally play a substantial number of Fighters and a ton of Rogues and Rangers. I also play full casters, but I play more of those three classes than I do any full caster class and when I play those classes I expect the full caster PCs at the table to be able to do those wordlbreaking things, and I don't expect my PC to do those things. If I wanted my PC to do those things I would have picked a full caster class. If being the top dog and "winning" the table was important I would always play a full caster. There are some players that want that and those players do gravitate towards full casters. Where this could conceptually be an issue is with new players who "don't know any better", but it really at a practical level is not a problem there either when it comes to classes. If they are playing an ultra-powerful class with a party of all newbies they don't know enough to really overshadow anyone based on the mechanics. If they are playing at a mixed table with experienced players and newbies that experience is going to account for far more of this than class mechanics will. [/QUOTE]

Verification