Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6830148" data-attributes="member: 2067">The comparison is just that they are rough equivalents - that they have broadly the same impact in play. They are different, but that difference doesn't result in one being better or worse than the other in general (though in specific instances, one is probably better than the other).The differences that are there don't change their broad parity. Cantrips crit less often and deal less damage much of the time (more saving throws, fewer attack rolls), but have rider effects. Weapons get mitigated with damage resistance (which just lessens damage); cantrips get mitigated with magic resistance (which removes all consequences of a failed save). And in the end, the idea that fighters get to play with their features less than wizards do because wizards have cantrips is just shown to not really be the case - wizards play with cantrips, fighters play with martial weapons, these things basically fill the same design space and neither can be said to be objectively better than the other.Because when you think about a powerful wizard, &quot;being good with a sword&quot; is not a quality you associate with them. The first obligation of the class system in D&amp;D is to help us realize the character archetypes of fantasy fiction in our gameplay. It would be like a dwarf developing charm resistance or a barbarian learning algebra. It's not really what you sign up to do when you pick that game element.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6830148, member: 2067"] The comparison is just that they are rough equivalents - that they have broadly the same impact in play. They are different, but that difference doesn't result in one being better or worse than the other in general (though in specific instances, one is probably better than the other). The differences that are there don't change their broad parity. Cantrips crit less often and deal less damage much of the time (more saving throws, fewer attack rolls), but have rider effects. Weapons get mitigated with damage resistance (which just lessens damage); cantrips get mitigated with magic resistance (which removes all consequences of a failed save). And in the end, the idea that fighters get to play with their features less than wizards do because wizards have cantrips is just shown to not really be the case - wizards play with cantrips, fighters play with martial weapons, these things basically fill the same design space and neither can be said to be objectively better than the other. Because when you think about a powerful wizard, "being good with a sword" is not a quality you associate with them. The first obligation of the class system in D&D is to help us realize the character archetypes of fantasy fiction in our gameplay. It would be like a dwarf developing charm resistance or a barbarian learning algebra. It's not really what you sign up to do when you pick that game element. [/QUOTE]

Verification