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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 7436012" data-attributes="member: 23716">I find it interesting that rather than argue the OP's logic & proposals, we get a lot of hand waving and philosophical "perfect balance is impossible" and "who wants balance anyway?" type of arguments.  I'm not convinced a Sorc with twinned Firebolt is over the top (or if it is, not by much).  I think things like sorlocks and sorcadins are kind of ridiculous and don't really give them much credence. The real question here is how much balance is really needed?  Why even have levels? Many will have different answers. I like 5e and think they did a great job, by and large, of stepping back from the edge of system mastery & complexity while largely capturing the 'feel' of D&D.  That does not mean that it is not without flaws and couldn't be improved; especially after a few years in the wild.  For instance, I think a lot of the spells could be better designed, yet I acknowledge that they paired down the worst of the 3.x excesses.  I see nothing wrong with the assertion that feats tend to favor one or two specific weapons over others and caster at-wills threaten martial's damage niche in non-feat games.  I'm not convinced on every aspect, but I can see the argument.  This takes nothing away from the fact that charm person cleaned out a whole bandit hideout for you that one time; indeed it validates that experience.  The Sorcerer/Wizard/Bard/Warlock/AK/AT (or some touch of the previous mentioned) was using a leveled spell resource to solve a problem in an interesting way and had no need of high dpr at-will cantrip to 'blast' his/her way through the encounter.</blockquote>

Verification