Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6389093" data-attributes="member: 6677017">True. I'm (intentionally) taking the non-relative perspective straight from the spellbook. You can get very different results when you take relativity into account. For instance, the debates over the power of 5e characters versus 3e characters at very low levels. I find it patently obvious that if you create them straight out of the PHB the 5e characters blow away the 3e characters if you stuck them in the same adventuring party. But I have no disagreement whatsoever that the very low level 3e characters are more effective than 5e characters versus the threats that they are likely to be facing at those levels in their respective edition. (5e goblins are much nastier than 3e goblins, for instance.)Yes. That's a mechanic hardcoded into the system, and as such is appropriate to discuss in a relative comparison of power. The approach I was taking was what I might call &quot;Spells As Written,&quot; straight from the spellbooks. I think is also of merit in comparing power. A lot of factors must be taken into account making relative comparisons complex and dependent on unknown or difficult to predict variables (such as what threats are encounters, player skill, and DM rules adjudication). By contrast, simple &quot;Spells as Written&quot; comparisons can provide useful information which does not depend on unknown variables to such a degree. It isn't a complete picture, but it's a part that is helpful.For instance, it might come into play when dealing with monsters that have spellcasting, where regular and innate spellcasting interact a bit differently.Agreed that multiclass casters are still borked.I'm not disagreeing overall. Relative comparisons probably are more useful in final analysis.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 6389093, member: 6677017"] True. I'm (intentionally) taking the non-relative perspective straight from the spellbook. You can get very different results when you take relativity into account. For instance, the debates over the power of 5e characters versus 3e characters at very low levels. I find it patently obvious that if you create them straight out of the PHB the 5e characters blow away the 3e characters if you stuck them in the same adventuring party. But I have no disagreement whatsoever that the very low level 3e characters are more effective than 5e characters versus the threats that they are likely to be facing at those levels in their respective edition. (5e goblins are much nastier than 3e goblins, for instance.) Yes. That's a mechanic hardcoded into the system, and as such is appropriate to discuss in a relative comparison of power. The approach I was taking was what I might call "Spells As Written," straight from the spellbooks. I think is also of merit in comparing power. A lot of factors must be taken into account making relative comparisons complex and dependent on unknown or difficult to predict variables (such as what threats are encounters, player skill, and DM rules adjudication). By contrast, simple "Spells as Written" comparisons can provide useful information which does not depend on unknown variables to such a degree. It isn't a complete picture, but it's a part that is helpful. For instance, it might come into play when dealing with monsters that have spellcasting, where regular and innate spellcasting interact a bit differently. Agreed that multiclass casters are still borked. I'm not disagreeing overall. Relative comparisons probably are more useful in final analysis. [/QUOTE]

Verification