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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7178628" data-attributes="member: 48965">I see this assertion by 4e fans often but my experience with the game pointed to a totally different conclusion, when it cam to versatility and breadth of utility... magic was still king in 4e.  Rituals along with the spells a wizard or cleric got still allowed them to do things a fighter could only dream of.  Sure in 4e he was the king of combat (DPR, maneuvers, etc.), but arguably he's still the king of combat in 5e as well (DPR, maneuvers, etc.). EDIT: To clarify I don't consider having an equal number of fiddly bits equal to achieving balance... especially if said fiddly bits don't have the same breadth and utility.  500 ways to kill something is still... 500 ways to kill something and not the ability to levitate or turn invisible.As to 5e it put it's own limitations in place for spells that limit spell power far more than say 3e but still, like every other edition of D&D, they do not in and of themselves achieve parity between the feats a mundane character can do vs. a martial character. Really... you think one of the design goals of 5e was to achieve the feel of imbalance in previous editions?  Was that the imbalance of OD&D, BD&D, AD&D, 3e or 4e?  Which one was it trying to emulate, and according to your views succeeded at?  And if this was it's goals why nerf the power of certain spells and why implement concentration to limit spells?  How is giving out XP and letting players keep track of it individually to determine when they level up... "wildly complicated to actually use"?   Also level limits was a part of the balancing of older editions... so it doesn't make sense to claim it would fail without them.</blockquote>

Verification