Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8854650" data-attributes="member: 6987520">The core class really isn't all that powerful. It is their spell list and the spell designs which are too good IMO.Definitely! I agree with this completely. It is part of the OP about too large of a spell list, but I often see the same spells over and over again, such as the examples you give.Because they help to identify what is really wrong.Is it the class?Is it spell design?Was it the encounter?Was it just "bad luck" or an unlikely roll?Is it players' play-style?and so on...There could be any number or combinations of factors that lead to a situation where a player or DM feels something is a problem.Consider [USER=6877472]@James Gasik[/USER]'s example (<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-really-wrong-with-the-wizard.693755/post-8854310" target="_blank">D&D 5E - What is REALLY wrong with the Wizard? (+)</a>). Resilient Sphere doesn't allow the creature inside to be harmed. BUT the DM set up another way for the demon to be defeated by destroying the altar. The spell did precisely what it was meant to do: incapsulate a creature to either protect it or stop it from harming others. Without the altar addition, when the spell ended the battle would have resumed.Also, at that level most demons have magic resistance. So, was it also "bad roll" favoring the players?So, is it the class, the spell, or a fluke unexpected side-effect because of how the DM set up the encounter?Where does the problem lie here then?The wizard class? Not really, Sorcerers can cast web as well as Wizards, as can Bards via Magical Secrets and certain subclasses gain it as a class spell (Circle of Land - Underdark Druids for instance).Is it the spell? Maybe. Was the monster Large? Should the spell include advantage for Large and larger creatures? Or should the spell be altered in some other way if it is the problem.Was it just "bad rolls"? The monster failed the save, then failed to escape until two rounds later (if I am reading you correctly). Does this mean poor monster design, or do we fault the swingy nature of the d20 itself?First, I did not "attempt to dismiss it" (just like I didn't attempt to dismiss your example above). I proposed a reason why the spell had an impact in a fashion that was never intended in the spell itself. Even the poster stated they didn't find a problem with the spell compared to other spells.So, does that also mean an issue is the power-level, as was one point I outlined in the OP?IMO it was an unseen consequence by the DM then. It happens. I've done such things many times over the decades, where players use a spell, item or feature in a way I didn't foresee and turned what should have been difficult into something easy.I don't "blame" people for making oversights. It happens to the best of us because they are unexpected.Anyway, [USER=6877472]@James Gasik[/USER] goes on to say that the problem as he saw it was more how that one spell made all their other efforts immaterial. Which leads back the the issue of spells being too powerful. Otherwise, any magical feature can do the same. I've seen Channel Divinity also alter the course of entire encounters, making the other PCs seem impotent by comparison.My point is (as a + thread) about identifying what is really going on when posters say Wizards are a problem, too powerful, etc.Your first posts above was great, and I even gave one a "like" before I read the last two. But you seem to be more taking issue with my responses than with the issue.</blockquote>

Verification