Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7178945" data-attributes="member: 48965">Speak for yourself, no edition warring on my part... I'm addressing a topic you decided to interject into the discussion. No warring but if I feel something you stated is wrong then I'm going to call you on it.Did I?&nbsp; You said... Seems like a pretty clear claim... you stated spells and maneuvers were balanced and brought into line...So magic was still greater how does that equate to neatly balanced or their capabilities being brought in line.&nbsp; And again you're ignoring the power of rituals which wizards and clerics got for free as a class feature.&nbsp; How about it still wasn't balanced.&nbsp; Unless we are talking the numerical balance of number of powers gained as opposed to breadth of utility or versatility which has always been my understanding of the complaint.So it was balanced because (some) magic was accessible to mundanes as well... IMO it kind of defeats the purpose of claiming magic and martials were balanced if the martials still need magic for it to be true.So he was the best defender and a strong (if not the strongest) secondary striker, with arguably some strikers under the class that rivaled the Ranger (mainly two-weapon and Slayer) and had a ton of feat support, again mostly centered on killing things... but he wasn't the king of combat in 4e... yeah, Ok.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Using the above definition of &quot;best&quot;... it would seem the 4e fighter. fits in just fine.. Good thing we have advantage/disadvantage in 5e to avoid this type of thing.&nbsp; On the other hand wading through very similar powers with only a minor change or upgrade here and there as well as numerous feats with minor and/or situational bonuses would seem to fall under the same type of fiddly bits you describe above.No I said exactly what I was talking about.&nbsp; Giving someone the same number of powers but having one set of those powers be much more limited in versatility and utility... well it isn't really parity is it...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 7178945, member: 48965"] Speak for yourself, no edition warring on my part... I'm addressing a topic you decided to interject into the discussion. No warring but if I feel something you stated is wrong then I'm going to call you on it. Did I? You said... Seems like a pretty clear claim... you stated spells and maneuvers were balanced and brought into line... So magic was still greater how does that equate to neatly balanced or their capabilities being brought in line. And again you're ignoring the power of rituals which wizards and clerics got for free as a class feature. How about it still wasn't balanced. Unless we are talking the numerical balance of number of powers gained as opposed to breadth of utility or versatility which has always been my understanding of the complaint. So it was balanced because (some) magic was accessible to mundanes as well... IMO it kind of defeats the purpose of claiming magic and martials were balanced if the martials still need magic for it to be true. So he was the best defender and a strong (if not the strongest) secondary striker, with arguably some strikers under the class that rivaled the Ranger (mainly two-weapon and Slayer) and had a ton of feat support, again mostly centered on killing things... but he wasn't the king of combat in 4e... yeah, Ok. Using the above definition of "best"... it would seem the 4e fighter. fits in just fine.. Good thing we have advantage/disadvantage in 5e to avoid this type of thing. On the other hand wading through very similar powers with only a minor change or upgrade here and there as well as numerous feats with minor and/or situational bonuses would seem to fall under the same type of fiddly bits you describe above. No I said exactly what I was talking about. Giving someone the same number of powers but having one set of those powers be much more limited in versatility and utility... well it isn't really parity is it... [/QUOTE]

Verification