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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6663067" data-attributes="member: 996">The old max spells knowable?  I recall people using it, not that it matter much - and if you ever managed to get a 19 INT, no limit. Nod.  And if you had  more than one wizard, you could trade spells with eachother, further making them similar but for Specialty. Not so much.  Concentration mostly limits stacking, which 5e already presents limited opportunities for.   Concentration spells also seem to be compensated with fairly substantial power, relatively speaking.  So you cast one very effective concentration spell instead of pre-casting lots of longer duration ones - just means you need fewer slots to be fully contributing all day.And 5e versatility is very high in a mechanical sense.  You choose the spells you learn, choose spells to prep each day, then cast them spontaneously - that combines the versatility of 3.5 wizards and sorcerers into one very generous mechanic.  On top of that, you have no-slot-cost rituals.  Only the relative lack of bloated spell lists counts against the 5e caster's versatility. Then you want a game of mighty martial heroes consistently defeating terrifying monsters, including evil NPC casters, occasionally with the help of a mcguffin magic item or spell or some exposition provided by a friendly wizard or what-have-you.  You'd also want to play a lot of solo games, since ensemble casts are unusual in genre - LotR being the prominent exception.But, games do have to make concessions to balance and playability, if they're to be decent games (though, if they have other selling points, they may not have to in order to be financially successful, relatively speaking).  So having PC casters makes sense, and having them contributing more than friendly casters typically do in genre was the right way to go - D&D just took the 'contributing' a little to far, and casters too often ended up dominating play, particularly in certain editions and/or at certain levels.  D&D also didn't go far enough in giving the fighter mechanical ways of modeling what genre heroes do - maybe the thought was that they didn't need mechanical modeling, IDK, I wasn't in Lake Geneva chatting with Gygax & Arneson at the time...  :shrug:  But, threads like this happen because the D&D has consistently failed the fighter on either or both of two fronts:  being able to deliver on what the corresponding heroic archetypes can do in the genre, and being balanced with other classes. If it's like a Paladin or EK and involves grafting spellcasting or magical abilities to the Fighter, that's not such a bad thing.But it's also not the only design hurdle that keeps tripping up attempts to improve the Fighter.  Another big one is that an idea will come up to make the fighter better - Martial Damage Dice in the Next playtest, are a perfect example - and, in a few cycles, /everyone/ is getting the full benefit of that idea, and the fighter is back to being a baseline that does nothing of it's own.In 5e, there are sub-classes or archetypes that get something.  In the case of the EK, it's pretty good (wizard spells) but not unique.  In the case of the Battlemaster, it's not so great but no on else gets CS dices (as yet).  Not like MDDs which virtually everyone got before they were dropped from the playtest...</blockquote>

Verification