Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6647163" data-attributes="member: 82106">And quite frankly the non-casters in 5e are strictly second-stringers by 5th level. Between my Wizard (who's hit points are 2/3 of the fighters and who's AC is in a practical sense several points BETTER) and the Cleric, we leave the 2 fighters in the dust in an overall sense. That's with an EK and a Battlemaster that is an Elf and so has a pretty respectable Fire Bolt. Likewise, the Rogue is useful, but a 3rd caster, maybe an illusionist or something focused particularly on sneakiness, would probably serve better overall (and again, the rogue is an Arcane Trickster, so HAS some useful magic). I'd be far from saying that the non-casters are useless, they're perfectly capable, in their limited ways. The ranger certainly has plenty of offensive capability and his wilderness stuff is generally handy. The elves and the druid can cover that too though, and overall he's not vital.I haven't seen level 6-10 yet, but the trend is clear. The fighters keep getting more damage, the druid, cleric, and wizard keep getting large amounts of additional plot power, flexibility, and perfectly adequate defenses and damage.5e certainly doesn't go mad with caster power as 3.x does, but its hardly even-handed. Beyond that the variances in resource management between classes tends to hurt the non-casters, adding insult to injury. Every system has had to wrestle with the 'fighters are mundane, wizards are special' meme. 4e just handled it better than any other D&D has. Having played 4e wizards and 5e wizards I don't find the 4e ones less wizardly or less fun, just less endowed with an overabundance of 'stuff'.</blockquote>

Verification