Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7573313" data-attributes="member: 996">There were a lot more spells in 3.5, so the 3.5 wizard needed a lot more spells known to have a reasonable variety of them.&nbsp; Yet, really, there were a few really significant spells and a lot of chaff.&nbsp; So, sure, there's a distinction there, but is it a terribly important difference?&nbsp; Haste, Polymorph, et all aren't so broken, Fighter can't WWA, Spring Attack, or even charge.&nbsp; Fireball does more damage, so do most things.&nbsp; 'Power' is relative from one edition to the next what matters is how powerful in context, but versatility is comparable across editions.&nbsp; 3.5 spells are really broken, and 3.5 casters very versatile, but with a trade-off between spontaneous vs prepped.&nbsp; 4e spells were comparatively well-balanced, prepped casting was /very/ limited in it's versatility, and spontaneous didn't exist, but you got at-will cantrips.&nbsp; 5e spells aren't /as/ broken as 3.5, and casters are more versatile, particularly the Cleric, Druid &amp; Wizard who /combine/ the advantages of 3.5 prep &amp; spontaneous with the advantages of 4e at-will cantrips &amp; slotless rituals.&nbsp; It's like the 5e wizard got every toy from every prior wizard's toy box … … except for magic item creation, of course.&nbsp;Tier was never about a given level, but overall. At low level, a 3.5 wizard was plenty versatile prepping a few spells (and a few cantrips), scribing the odd scroll if he had money, and resorting to a crossbow when he had nothing better to do.&nbsp; 5e, no crossbow, cantrips with unlimited use including effective attacks, and spells prepped but cast spontaneously.&nbsp; There are difference, of course.&nbsp; But the 5e wizard's casting is innately more versatile, and it's /easier/, as well (see the thread about readying to interrupt a spell for one example).&nbsp; &nbsp;The Cleric was Tier 1, too, and there's no reason to think it isn't, still.&nbsp; A case could be made for the Bard joining them, but remember the point I made, above:&nbsp; while, for instance, the Lore Bard's Magical Secrets makes the class appear very versatile, any given bard has to choose those spells and stick with them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7573313, member: 996"] There were a lot more spells in 3.5, so the 3.5 wizard needed a lot more spells known to have a reasonable variety of them. Yet, really, there were a few really significant spells and a lot of chaff. So, sure, there's a distinction there, but is it a terribly important difference? Haste, Polymorph, et all aren't so broken, Fighter can't WWA, Spring Attack, or even charge. Fireball does more damage, so do most things. 'Power' is relative from one edition to the next what matters is how powerful in context, but versatility is comparable across editions. 3.5 spells are really broken, and 3.5 casters very versatile, but with a trade-off between spontaneous vs prepped. 4e spells were comparatively well-balanced, prepped casting was /very/ limited in it's versatility, and spontaneous didn't exist, but you got at-will cantrips. 5e spells aren't /as/ broken as 3.5, and casters are more versatile, particularly the Cleric, Druid & Wizard who /combine/ the advantages of 3.5 prep & spontaneous with the advantages of 4e at-will cantrips & slotless rituals. It's like the 5e wizard got every toy from every prior wizard's toy box … … except for magic item creation, of course. Tier was never about a given level, but overall. At low level, a 3.5 wizard was plenty versatile prepping a few spells (and a few cantrips), scribing the odd scroll if he had money, and resorting to a crossbow when he had nothing better to do. 5e, no crossbow, cantrips with unlimited use including effective attacks, and spells prepped but cast spontaneously. There are difference, of course. But the 5e wizard's casting is innately more versatile, and it's /easier/, as well (see the thread about readying to interrupt a spell for one example). The Cleric was Tier 1, too, and there's no reason to think it isn't, still. A case could be made for the Bard joining them, but remember the point I made, above: while, for instance, the Lore Bard's Magical Secrets makes the class appear very versatile, any given bard has to choose those spells and stick with them. [/QUOTE]

Verification