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: 7437704" data-attributes="member: 996">I suspect they'll check out PF2, and go with that, or back to 3.x or something.Which is sad, because 5e was s'posed't'be for everyone....  ;( Meh.  I don't use feats or MCing or Inspiration unless I have to, but that's as much convienence as 'concern.'  I acknowledge the issues, though, they're real enough, and they're hardly the only ones.  Depending on how you rule on the broad swaths of the rules that are ambiguous, the few that seem problematic 'As Written' can fade into the background or come to fore - and you can create/solve all sorts of other problems, too.  In 3.5 or 4e I'd be more concerned about issues being dismissed, because the rules were more concrete and the game was supposed to work (a certain way), again, "As Written."  5e, DM Empowerment, Rulings over Rules - I still have to acknowledge a mechanical issue, and don't want to see one dismissed out of hand, but the game really exists more in the moment, at the table, not in the rulebook, nor even at chargen/level-up.   If it wasn't a rhetorical question, it might as well be a tautology.But, just as 5e assumes 6-8 encounters for it's balance point, because it gives classes different resource models, it also necessarily assumes a ratio among the pillars, because it gives classes different levels of competence within each, as well.  Really, there's a very narrow range of potential ways to play, if you want the game to balance, mechanically, on its own.  (I'd say 'without intervention' but sticking to that straight and narrow is, itself, intervention.)   They want DPR builds to balance with DPR builds, that's not the same thing as DPR being the main concern, or they'd be all over trying to boost DPR outside the weapon users who have little else to contribute.  Instead, the excess DPR of the feat-optimized fighter is viewed as merely rendering the class viable. Again, sounds like he has, but is unhappy with what doing so necessitates, in terms of ongoing effort. Actually, that's not entirely unfair to say. Fighters were very generic until they lucked into a defining magic item, prior to 3e, and the lack of skills also hurt attempts at the Robin Hood (or almost any other) archetype.  Though weapon specialization obviously, let you be exceptional with a bow, it was about damage through RoF, primarily (+1 to hit won't win you many archery contests). SS at least gives you startling accuracy at long range & vs cover.But 'necessary' is relative.  If the option is there, to be the best, you 'need' it.  One of the problem with pouring too many options into a list-based game, it creates incompetence in those who don't immediately snap up the relevant new options, when, before, they were as good as could be.   (Obviously that doesn't imply everyone should suck exactly the same at everything to 'avoid bloat' or anything, it's just a design consideration.) Don't stay far enough ahead in DPR to make up for caster versatility, anyway.The -5 actually fits neatly with BA:  without BA, it'd be too great a penalty at low level, and trivial at high. No question. Things were included, excluded, & designed to avoid another edition war, to evoke classic feel, promote DM Empowerment, and to seem accessible from a distance (not look intimidating on the shelf).  Balance was never on the table - ironically, except for the easily-checked DPR.</blockquote>

Verification