Can we not argue about this? I thought the post in question was reasonable and had no problems understanding what was being said. Making a joke about being unclear, if a reader didn't understand,, is within bounds too.
But mocking? That's not cool. Dragging things out like this? Also not cool. The golden rule - be cool to each other.
Personally, I think 5e has a number of flaws - I don't like the Fighter's design. I don't like that Fighting Styles that really seem to be focusing heavily on swords - duelist, great weapon fighting, two weapon fighting all are based around the idea of using swords; technically you can use something else, but they're all geared to primarily use a kind of sword. Archery, protection and defensive are variations, but protection and defensive are both synergetic with using a sword. Archery is the only one that stands out. How about something like a spear or hammer instead? Something that speaks to using a flail or whip, or something that revolves around using Reach weapons? I know its called a Sword and Sorcery game, but come on. A little variety?
Do I think that full spellcasters put half- or non- casters to shame? Not really, especially when we talk about warlocks, sorcerers or druids. Wizards are very versatile, as are clerics to a lesser extent, but those two seem to be heavily favored by WotC. Other casters feel much more limited and... stunted, for lack of a better term, than the main two; as an aside, I do notice that any arguments about casters being too strong revolve around the wizard primarily, and ignore the others. Bards are a bit curious, since they're jacks of all trades, but I find that with their Charisma being such a huge priority, and their default abilities lending themselves to buffing others over the self, its usually not an issue. They simply lack the breadth of spells to step out of their bardy niche, even with magical secrets.
I think the biggest three failures of 5e are 1) how to handle mixed caster-warrior styles (the paladin/arcane trickster work well, but every other one has serious issues IMHO), 2) two weapon fighting, and 3) all the gold and a lack of a workable (even if only from the player's perspective) economy to use all that money on.
But mocking? That's not cool. Dragging things out like this? Also not cool. The golden rule - be cool to each other.
Personally, I think 5e has a number of flaws - I don't like the Fighter's design. I don't like that Fighting Styles that really seem to be focusing heavily on swords - duelist, great weapon fighting, two weapon fighting all are based around the idea of using swords; technically you can use something else, but they're all geared to primarily use a kind of sword. Archery, protection and defensive are variations, but protection and defensive are both synergetic with using a sword. Archery is the only one that stands out. How about something like a spear or hammer instead? Something that speaks to using a flail or whip, or something that revolves around using Reach weapons? I know its called a Sword and Sorcery game, but come on. A little variety?
Do I think that full spellcasters put half- or non- casters to shame? Not really, especially when we talk about warlocks, sorcerers or druids. Wizards are very versatile, as are clerics to a lesser extent, but those two seem to be heavily favored by WotC. Other casters feel much more limited and... stunted, for lack of a better term, than the main two; as an aside, I do notice that any arguments about casters being too strong revolve around the wizard primarily, and ignore the others. Bards are a bit curious, since they're jacks of all trades, but I find that with their Charisma being such a huge priority, and their default abilities lending themselves to buffing others over the self, its usually not an issue. They simply lack the breadth of spells to step out of their bardy niche, even with magical secrets.
I think the biggest three failures of 5e are 1) how to handle mixed caster-warrior styles (the paladin/arcane trickster work well, but every other one has serious issues IMHO), 2) two weapon fighting, and 3) all the gold and a lack of a workable (even if only from the player's perspective) economy to use all that money on.
Last edited: