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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 8304548" data-attributes="member: 2209">3e D&D and later editions designed with a goal of all classes and characters being roughly power equivalent balanced for combat. Older editions had some leanings that way but also designed for some being worse at combat, the thief was a fairly weak combatant as could a low level magic user, in AD&D it was possible for a magic user to have a single push spell as their only offensive spell, and since gaining new spells was based on trading with other wizards or gaining scrolls or enemy spellbooks, it could easily be a non combat role class instead of the one shot sleep nuke offense considerations and that could continue for a number of levels.Other games have niche roles with no guarantee of combat competency, Shadowrun being famous for having niche roles for limited character types where others could not participate during that activity in the game (decking, astral space, riggers piloting stuff). There are games where magic is an option, but it is not necessarily any good for combat.I always preferred the everybody fights paradigm even in pre-3e D&D, but the Lankhmar set up is for that different nichier paradigm.My understanding is that is the design goal here, having magic be generally not for combat, and not everybody participating in most everything. A specific intentional departure from the 5e base of everybody fights well and can generally contribute to most activities.Criticisms that this cripples casting classes in combat and that there are alternatives to allow casting classes to still do magic in combat seem counter to the sought after design goal.</blockquote>

Verification