Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bluenose" data-source="post: 6658192" data-attributes="member: 49017">That people believed it when Forgotten Realms and 2nd edition and 3rd edition told them casters were supposed to be at the top of the pile didn't like it when 4e came along and flattened the pile out so everyone was more equal is perfectly plausible. Still, what were people complaining about then?&quot;Casters are weaker&quot;&quot; Yes, relative to 3e certainly. If the only acceptable standard for magic is that of 3e which was the apex of magic power - nerfing saving throws being merely one of the stand-out features - then all the previous editions were also &quot;absolutely intolerable&quot;. Even 5e isn't that far along, though it's far more caster friendly than non-3e editions.&quot;There's no simple class for the person who just wants to turn up and roll dice!&quot; No, there isn't. Guess what. Because of the nature of saving throws in 3e (and now 5e), the person who just wants to turn up and play a simple class - the Fighter - gets to turn up, roll a dice, fail a saving throw, and not roll any more till the spell wears off. Well, that seems to meet the requirements of the caster players well enough. Their 'friend' doesn't seem to be getting what they want.&quot;Martials have Powers!&quot; And another of the major complaints. Martial characters now have an ability which used to be solely associated with magic, their player can say to the GM that this is what the &lt;Thing&gt; does. Outrageous, when they're supposed to have to negotiate a solution that a sensible GM will restrict to what seems reasonable to someone who probably isn't an expert in martial arts. Worse, some of those non-magical abilities were as good as magical powers. Outrage. Magic is supposed to be special, and special things are magical, and special things are better than non-special things, and if a non-magical effect is as good as a magical effect that means the magical effect isn't special after all - if it was, it would certainly be better than the non-magical/non-special thing. &quot;I've got mine, and if you get yours then that'll ruin my fun by not letting me feel superior enough.&quot;So, yes. Caster entitlement isn't an inherent part of D&amp;D, or wasn't when it started out. And since that's the way the game has decided to go, good luck to WotC. But they'll never satisfy the entitlement complex of the caster players as well as 3e and PF do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bluenose, post: 6658192, member: 49017"] That people believed it when Forgotten Realms and 2nd edition and 3rd edition told them casters were supposed to be at the top of the pile didn't like it when 4e came along and flattened the pile out so everyone was more equal is perfectly plausible. Still, what were people complaining about then? "Casters are weaker"" Yes, relative to 3e certainly. If the only acceptable standard for magic is that of 3e which was the apex of magic power - nerfing saving throws being merely one of the stand-out features - then all the previous editions were also "absolutely intolerable". Even 5e isn't that far along, though it's far more caster friendly than non-3e editions. "There's no simple class for the person who just wants to turn up and roll dice!" No, there isn't. Guess what. Because of the nature of saving throws in 3e (and now 5e), the person who just wants to turn up and play a simple class - the Fighter - gets to turn up, roll a dice, fail a saving throw, and not roll any more till the spell wears off. Well, that seems to meet the requirements of the caster players well enough. Their 'friend' doesn't seem to be getting what they want. "Martials have Powers!" And another of the major complaints. Martial characters now have an ability which used to be solely associated with magic, their player can say to the GM that this is what the <Thing> does. Outrageous, when they're supposed to have to negotiate a solution that a sensible GM will restrict to what seems reasonable to someone who probably isn't an expert in martial arts. Worse, some of those non-magical abilities were as good as magical powers. Outrage. Magic is supposed to be special, and special things are magical, and special things are better than non-special things, and if a non-magical effect is as good as a magical effect that means the magical effect isn't special after all - if it was, it would certainly be better than the non-magical/non-special thing. "I've got mine, and if you get yours then that'll ruin my fun by not letting me feel superior enough." So, yes. Caster entitlement isn't an inherent part of D&D, or wasn't when it started out. And since that's the way the game has decided to go, good luck to WotC. But they'll never satisfy the entitlement complex of the caster players as well as 3e and PF do. [/QUOTE]

Verification