Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kcStranger" data-source="post: 6840551" data-attributes="member: 6824120">Honestly, I forget exactly where I saw the comment, though I know it was on this forum. The gist of it was this: 4e was probably the most combat-balanced version of D&D, and although some people really enjoyed it, the majority didn't like it as compared to 3.5/Pathfinder. And it's not like 5e is unrealistic, as sufficiently advanced technology is every bit as devastating as some of the spells in 5e. (Nukes OP; nerf plz.) Lots of people like the simplicity and flexibility of 5e and enjoy doing broken things from time to time, as compared to the more drawn-out and controlled nature of combat in 4e. It's just a matter of preference.Personally, I fall into the camp that prefers 5e overall, but wants to scale back on "auto-win" spells. Depending on how you interpret the rules, certain spells allow players to win fights that they really shouldn't be able to win. For instance, imagine a ninth-level Bard and Wizard going up against a Death Knight (CR 17). If the Bard and Wizard manage to roll better initiative, or have surprise, or whatever, and the GM doesn't rule that the Death Knight is immune to Heat Metal (he's not resistant or immune to fire damage), then the Bard can cast Heat Metal (on the Death Knight's armor), Wizard casts Wall of Force, both back up beyond 60 feet (the range of the Death Knight's spells), and boom--he dead. I prefer not to allow that sort of stuff, and the spell that makes all that stuff possible is Wall of Force, which is impossible to dodge, and impossible to break out of for many enemies.</blockquote>

Verification