NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7162312" data-attributes="member: 996">That's a fair characterization, but from a slightly different angle I see a smoother evolution:  Each edition has removed restrictions & limitations from casters, relative to the prior edition.AD&D, of course, was painfully, if haphazardly/inconsistently, limiting to casters.  Not every DM used every restriction on casting, and some added their own, but overall, it was pretty severe. 3e reduced those restrictions.  Instead of being unable to cast in armor, you had % chance of failure.  Instead of losing concentration of a spell if you were hit while casting it, you made a concentration check.  Instead of getting hit while casting being a matter of initiative that round, it required a ready or an AoO, and you could make a concentration check or take a 5' step to avoid the latter.  Instead of two hands to cast, you needed only one.  Instead of an inventory of wierd little material components, you just had a 'spell component pouch.'  You got to pick the spells you learned, learn more of them,  with no 'know spell %,' and 'prepare' (rather than memorize) them faster and cast more of them per day.  And that's just a selection.4e did not reverse any of that, it continued the trend.  Instead of all spells provoking, only range/area spells provoked, and if the AoO hit, the spell still worked fine, no concentration check required.  Some spells became 1/encounter  or at-will, instead of 1/day. Others, 'Rituals' had no such limitations.  Material components for combat spells were just gone, replaced by implements.  Material components for rituals were mere gp accounting.  4e was only different in that it reigned in the power of spells to an unprecedented degree, /and/ introduce radically more powerful/versatile maneuvers for non-casters that were close to balanced with them.  But as far as limitations on casting, 4e removed yet more of them relative to 3e.5e didn't have much left to remove, but it still did so.  It removed the action cost from 'sustain' spells, making them 'concentration' spells.  It remove AoOs for casting, entirely.  It retained at-will cantrips and rituals, yet it also gave casters many more daily slots, and, in the big one, made all casters spontaneous, like 3.x sorcerers!  And, even while it removed restrictions, it restored much of the power of spells that 4e had reduced so dramatically. That's where it's less of a problem, if anything.  If you have a group with comparable system-mastery chops, they'll gravitate towards the viable - and optimal - feats, and all be reasonably 'balanced' with eachother.  They may or may not have much variety left in the builds they settle on, and the DM may have to ratchet up challenges, but everyone knows where they stand.  Until someone else takes one of the optimal feats for similar reasons, and inadvertently overshadows them, sure.  Or, in worse cases, where they take the obviously-fits-the-concept feat (or other option), and it does nothing to support the concept, in practice.  5e rules certainly were not written with optimization-minded players in mind, neither in the sense of catering to them with intentional rewards for system mastery like 3.x/PF, nor of keeping them somewhat in check with more robust balance and frequent errata, like 4e, very briefly, pre-Essentials.</blockquote>

Verification