Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 9160157" data-attributes="member: 996">Yeah, it seemed pretty clear from releases that an effort had been made to balance single target damage over many rounds, with fighters getting a boost from Action Surge aproximately every-other combat, and otherwise grinding, while casters got a boost while their spells lasted, then ground less effectively with cantrips than martials could with extra attacks. Thus the whole 6-8 encounters & 2-3 short rests thing, which is alternately presented by apologist as the only way to run the game, or as a completely meaningless non-requirement, depending on whether they're apologizing the game's mistreatment of players who don't choose casters or of DMs who don't want to force pacing.  <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />That seemed a clear intent, at a glance, and one that at least approximately seems to work (as you've shown, once again, here), at best, at the price of constraining the DM's creativity, and pushing the party through comparatively pointless filler combats.  But it only illustrates a rough, fragile balance in the combat pillar, in terms of overall DPR, the martial types' only good pillar, and best thing within that pillar.  The other two? <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😬" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f62c.png" title="Grimacing face    :grimacing:" data-shortname=":grimacing:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />  It don't look so good.Control spells like that can more or less trivialize a combat - unless the melee types screw it up, which is a whole 'nuther thing - and, while it may make the numbers look good for the party's damage grinders to grind damage against a more or less helpless foe for an extra round or few while the caster conserves spells and plinks with cantrips, it ain't exactly the stuff of high fantasy. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />While I like numbers at least as much as the next guy, and I'm not going to quibble much with yours (there are two potential issues I see at a glance, one is topping out at 3 enemies, which seems low - 5e BA makes being outnumbered /bad/ for the party, but they should face at least equal forces now and then - the other is going out to dozens of rounds of combat in a day, when, y'know, characters, especially melee-oriented ones, do take damage, and the party can lose members outright or collectively run out of hp & HD), I do think an analysis like this completely misses the versatility & flexibility that put 3.5 casters in Tier 1&2 and non-casters in 4&5. In 3.5 there was a huge debate over whether the Sorcerer's (and other less famous spontaneous casters) round-by-round flexibility to cast the pest spell they knew, or the Wizard's (or CoDzillas') day-by-day flexibility to prepare the best spells they anticipated would be useful, was ultimately more powerful.  The Tier list consensus was prepped beat spontaneous, putting Wizard/Druid/Cleric in Tier 1 and Sorcerer/Favored Soul in Tier 2.  <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />That debate is moot in 5e, since all slot casters cast spontaneously, so have greater flexibility than they did at their height in 3.5</blockquote>

Verification