Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8679132" data-attributes="member: 82106">Sure thing, not sure why any of that needed to be said. Some builds are slightly better than others, but none really stands head and shoulders above another, at least in terms of what are mainly non-casters. It surely isn't enough to make very many people not want to play something, IMHO. Honestly I wouldn't play a non-caster if I wanted to be maximally effective ANYWAY, so it is a bit moot... I think, assuming you want to design your D&amp;D game to be a fairly compelling depiction of the genre, 5e is probably pretty close to as balanced as you will really ever get. I'm sure this will elicit a long list of &quot;but if only they'd done X it would be even closer&quot; which I wouldn't probably dispute, but there's also the practical process of designing, publishing, and releasing a game. So, realistically it seems like major snafus were avoided overall.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8679132, member: 82106"] Sure thing, not sure why any of that needed to be said. Some builds are slightly better than others, but none really stands head and shoulders above another, at least in terms of what are mainly non-casters. It surely isn't enough to make very many people not want to play something, IMHO. Honestly I wouldn't play a non-caster if I wanted to be maximally effective ANYWAY, so it is a bit moot... I think, assuming you want to design your D&D game to be a fairly compelling depiction of the genre, 5e is probably pretty close to as balanced as you will really ever get. I'm sure this will elicit a long list of "but if only they'd done X it would be even closer" which I wouldn't probably dispute, but there's also the practical process of designing, publishing, and releasing a game. So, realistically it seems like major snafus were avoided overall. [/QUOTE]

Verification