Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FourthBear" data-source="post: 3863058" data-attributes="member: 55846">This would be balancing the mage from the non-mages by making them much weaker than the non-mages in battle.  A lower levels since 2e days, that's pretty much how it went.  You "earned" your unbalanced high level archmage by being so much weaker and more vulnerable than the other classes at lower levels.  Of course, this only really "worked" if everyone played from 1st level to 18th.  In my experience, most campaigns from 2e and prior didn't really go much past 10th level, so the balancing was pretty much from 1st to 10th.  (This lack of high level adventuring also tended to eliminate the supposed balancing effect of racial level limits.  Who cared that you topped out at 9th, when your demihuman multiclassed characters would never see that level anyway?)In 3e, the designers tried to even things out a bit by giving low level mages a few more spells and options and giving the non-spellcasters more options at higher levels.  I think what this thread demonstrates is that the underlying character concepts (As a mage, I can do anything with magic! vs. As a fighter, my combat skills are great!) inherently result in disparity in a character's influence and scope.  While diplomacy and role-playing can even this out a bit for non-spellcasters, this seems to assume that the spellcasters are somehow prohibited from doing the same diplomacy and role-playing work, thus gaining both full advantages.</blockquote>

Verification