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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 9592156" data-attributes="member: 6750235">This isn't evidence to support your claims.  It looks like a form of ad hom directed at other posters.  I'm pointing it out because I think the conversation goes better if we avoid that type of discussion, or at least demonstrate how you think it's dismissive so some constructive criticism could help others with their arguments too.Spells aren't the limitation.  Spell slots are the limitation on spells.And martial classes are typically better at skills than casters unless we start comparing the best skilled casters to the worst skilled martials.  This discussion point gets back to my favorite thing about rogues who are clearly better skilled than any other class in 5.x rules.I can go more in to depth on martial skills benefits versus caster skills benefits if you want, but I think that's a topic that could have it's own thread if you want to argue the point.If we look at using simulacrum to bypass the the negative effects of wish then yes that is OP.  It's easy to accomplish with wizards and bards.  But is it's also not most of the campaign and I'm not convinced it's really more OP than the champion's 18th level survivor ability.  Not dying is a pretty solid ability.That's because it's a class based system where different classes have different abilities.  Wizards don't have evasion because martial classes also have abilities caster classes do not.I can build a monk who can teleport around the battle field on every attack or magic action at very high levels and also raise the dead too.Martials don't need to everything casters do because that goes in a direction where martials have all the benefits of casters and none of the drawbacks.I'm going to ask you to prove this with evidence instead of repeating yourself.  It looks to me more like the bias is required to favor spell casters with things like easy access to long rests or low numbers of encouters.I think 3.5 games very much favored spell casters.  More than any other edition.  My opinion is that they're dialed back enough now for the first half of the levels that the high levels are just a reversal of who's really shining.That falls into "what is a dungeon?" category.  It doesn't really matter if the combats are set in tunnels under a castle or the tree branches of a giant forest or starts in the ballroom of a keep progressing through the rest of the keep.  IME they all play out the same so most of the adventures in which I've played for a very long time have a lot of "dungeon crawls".Who can fireball round after round?  That's part of the problem.  Firing fireballs for 3 rounds in 6 combats requires 18 spells slots.  This is in addition to the armor spell, shield spells, knock spells, fly spells, invisibility spells, charm spells, suggestion spells, etc that are also constantly claimed by people.  There aren't enough spell slots to sustain the style of play people claim.  It's Shrodinger's Wizard.Fireball does have it's uses, but it's not OP.  I would take the concentration spells instead and get more mileage out of that spell slot. Which is the other drawback that people seem to ignore these discussions.  If we use a save or suck spell 3 times and it works twice and does nothing once that's a lost slot and a lost action.  It's one of the reasons low level casters kinda suck.I believe the best spells avoid either the low damage or the lost actions / slots.I just wanted to point out that game sessions IRL don't equal a day in gameplay.  What you're giving isn't indicative of how often the party should be able to benefit from a long rest unless the DM is catering to the sessions that way.</blockquote>

Verification