Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7141531" data-attributes="member: 996">Nod.&nbsp; The wizard is more flexible, sure - it's more flexible than it's ever been, that way, really.&nbsp; Even compared to the notorious Tier 1 Wizard of 3.5, the neo-Vancian 5e Wizard's spontaneous casting gives him superior flexibility within an adventuring day.&nbsp; Comparing that to the fighter is hardly fair.&nbsp;And, if they actually manage to prepare a slate of spells so bad that none of them are ever useful the end the day with all their slots wasted.&nbsp; (OK, that's a bizarrely improbable corner case, I admit.)Doesn't really matter that much to the point you've made, above.&nbsp; Assuming a fighter puts his two net bonus ASIs towards some extra skills or other non-combat-meaningful feat, he's as good at combat (with weapons) as any Ranger or Paladin with the same fighting style and the same ASI &amp; feat choices.&nbsp; Which is surely good enough.&nbsp; But whatever those two feats are, he doesn't get to change them at the end of the day, let alone the middle of the adventure, and that's a profound lack of flexibility compared to the case you've made for the wizard, above.&nbsp; &nbsp;Nod.&nbsp; I'm sure y'all've heard this before, but you could combine the Fighter &amp; Rogue into one class, taking the best of each and cutting nothing, and it still wouldn't be overshadowing anyone...&nbsp;Depending on how you expanded it, it could also just serve to broaden their incompetencies.&nbsp; If you just added more skills and more detail to the skill system, for instance, you'd just have more options for the limited set of proficiencies &amp; ASIs to chase after. Now, maybe more elaborate skill uses (group checks are as inclusive as it gets in 5e) in exploration &amp; interaction could help - like 'complex' skill checks from 3e or 'skill challenges' from 4e?Concentration was very useful, though, it negated long-standing restrictions on and risks of spellcasting.&nbsp; If 5e casters were 'taxed' with a concentration skill that let them negate the Concentration mechanic, they'd be coming out far ahead.&nbsp; And Knowledge skills are already there, and already useful. And Spellcraft would presumably be useful any time you encounters spellcasters, which, given that every class uses spells to some degree, and that casters are among the most challenging potential opponents, couldn't help but be pretty useful, too.But, yeah, by all means, throw a few more proficiencies to the handful of non-magic-using sub-classes.&nbsp; Couldn't hurt.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7141531, member: 996"] Nod. The wizard is more flexible, sure - it's more flexible than it's ever been, that way, really. Even compared to the notorious Tier 1 Wizard of 3.5, the neo-Vancian 5e Wizard's spontaneous casting gives him superior flexibility within an adventuring day. Comparing that to the fighter is hardly fair. And, if they actually manage to prepare a slate of spells so bad that none of them are ever useful the end the day with all their slots wasted. (OK, that's a bizarrely improbable corner case, I admit.) Doesn't really matter that much to the point you've made, above. Assuming a fighter puts his two net bonus ASIs towards some extra skills or other non-combat-meaningful feat, he's as good at combat (with weapons) as any Ranger or Paladin with the same fighting style and the same ASI & feat choices. Which is surely good enough. But whatever those two feats are, he doesn't get to change them at the end of the day, let alone the middle of the adventure, and that's a profound lack of flexibility compared to the case you've made for the wizard, above. Nod. I'm sure y'all've heard this before, but you could combine the Fighter & Rogue into one class, taking the best of each and cutting nothing, and it still wouldn't be overshadowing anyone... Depending on how you expanded it, it could also just serve to broaden their incompetencies. If you just added more skills and more detail to the skill system, for instance, you'd just have more options for the limited set of proficiencies & ASIs to chase after. Now, maybe more elaborate skill uses (group checks are as inclusive as it gets in 5e) in exploration & interaction could help - like 'complex' skill checks from 3e or 'skill challenges' from 4e? Concentration was very useful, though, it negated long-standing restrictions on and risks of spellcasting. If 5e casters were 'taxed' with a concentration skill that let them negate the Concentration mechanic, they'd be coming out far ahead. And Knowledge skills are already there, and already useful. And Spellcraft would presumably be useful any time you encounters spellcasters, which, given that every class uses spells to some degree, and that casters are among the most challenging potential opponents, couldn't help but be pretty useful, too. But, yeah, by all means, throw a few more proficiencies to the handful of non-magic-using sub-classes. Couldn't hurt. [/QUOTE]

Verification