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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9187756" data-attributes="member: 7030563">No I didn't say it and that is not what that even says.  Read what you quoted.  What I said (and what you even quoted) is that "there is no evidence at all that [balance is a good thing].  NONE."That is fundamentally different than saying it has no value.The goals when it was designed were to gain players and some of the specific changes purposely moved away from the very balanced design that existed in 5E.If you don't believe that, then please tell me exactly what these "mechanical goals" are for which the game was designed?  Please cite them.Wait a minute here.  Warlocks were already, in the old design more powerful than martials.  In 5.5E they are more powerful than they were and the game is more unbalanced than it was between Warlocks and say Monks or Barbarians then it was before.Yet you are saying here that everyone should play the new, more unbalanced design?I think Sorcerers are widely regarded as the second most powerful caster, especially because of access to Wish.  It does depend on level though.  In any case they are well above the average class and well above the non-casters.Even if this is true and they are the "second weakest full caster", that means they are #4 out of 13 classes.  Making them stronger unbalances the game more than it was before.The argument to strengthen sorcerer so it is closer to Wizard is similar to the strawman I posited earlier to weaken the fighter so it is better balanced with to the Monk.There is no way around this, making the Sorcerer stronger unbalances the game overall because they are already stronger than most classes and if balance is the holy grail people say it is then making a strong class stronger would not be a good thing.With Warlock and with Sorcerer you point to things that increase the unbalance between casters and martials and state they are good things.  TBH I don't know a whole lot about the Warlock changes, but I do like the Sorcerer changes and I like them, even though they unbalance the game more.To start with this is entirely dependent on level.  Cleric and Druid are the strongest classes at low levels, with Druid falling off rapidly in tier 2 and Wizards and Sorcerers growing into the strongest classes at high levels.Regardless though, Sorcerer is not a weak class overall, and was not before they gave them more spells.You talk about limited spells - A 17th level Sorcerer with Wish can cast any Warlock, Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Druid, Cleric, Wizard or Sorcerer spell of 8th level and below. They have literally the entire spell list up to 8th level at their disposal.  They can also do it as an action, speeding spells like Planar Binding, Simulacrum, Druids Grove or Hallow.  .... actually check that, they can cast those as a bonus action!   Spells like these were purposely designed with a long casting time so you could not use them in combat, and Sorcerers (along with Wizards and Bards) have a way around that.Wish in play, especially in combat, is one of the most unbalanced, if not the most unbalanced, mechanics in the game.A good game well made game, sure that is difficult.  A balanced game no, not hard at all.  As a matter of fact that is part of why I believe balance is not essential or even desirable.As I noted elsewhere on this thread - just give martials more spells and they could be easily balanced.I play D&D all the time, and I have played with players throughout the world and this is factually not the case in the games I have played.  Right now I am playing a Monk and contributing.I played a fighter in a 1-20 campaign I finished a month ago and I was relevant at all levels.I realize others may have different experiences, but there are many, many high level non-casters who are not irrelevant.  In a game I am in now we have a Barbarian who is dominating the game, not because of mechanics, and not in a good way.The only time in 5E I had to exhibit extraordinary effort to contribute is when I have played with really poor ability score rolls, and I played a Wizard in that game specifically because my rolls were so low.It is imbalanced.  I never said it wasn't and with some caveats I agree with the above statement.  With the same ability scores at levels above 5 a Wizard can do more than a monk, a Wizard can do far more than a Monk at levels above 9 and that is largely true regardless of subclass.  But a Monk can do more than a Wizard from levels 1-3.In any case saying a Wizard can do more is fundamentally different than saying that a Monk can't contribute or that it detracts from the enjoyment of the game.I for one enjoy playing Monks and I am playing one in a game right now.  I also enjoy playing Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Rangers, Fighters and Rogues.  I don't play Druids or Barbarians at all because I don't enjoy playing them.At the end of the day, play what you want.  If you can't have fun unless you are playing a Wizard then you should probably play a Wizard.This is not true.  There are many problems with this statement,. to start with, it does not account for player personailty. This theory rests on the premise that players are all competing for maximum impact or recognition.That is not typically true.There are many quiet and shy players who do not want to contribute as much as other players.   There are also many players who want to be the center of attention and want to have more impact that others at the table and these are both true regardless of classes those players are playing.  It will primarily be these player traits that determine who has the most impact at the table, not the mechanics of their selected class.You do not need a diversity of classes in 5E.  You can argue no character can do it alone (although even that is game dependent), but certainly a group of characters of one class can usually do it all and TBH a group of characters from any single class can do it all.If you take any WOTC published adventure, I think they could be completed with 4 players of the exact same class and I think you could do that with any of the classes.Take Tyranny of Dragons, or ROTFM or DIA or any of them and you could do that with 4 Wizards or 4 Fighters or 4 Clerics or even 4 Monks.  You would need some diversity from race and feat options I think, but not necessarily from classes.  5E is designed around needing multiple character abilities and skills (using the English definition there, not the game definition), but the 5E game is not designed around the idea of needing specific classes to be the mechanic which implements that diversity.</blockquote>

Verification