![]() The unmatched versatility of casters: exagerated, as mentioned, due to lesser available spell slots, spells known / spells prepared, and not knowning beforehand what to face (weaker divinitions compared to earlier editions) Only after level 4 it gets more difficult, due to extra attack not stacking. And martials work great with multi classing, almost all martials benefit greatly from for example 3 levels of battle master fighter. the idea that multiclassing works better for casters then for martials: eh, what? Even though lower level spells can be upcast, losing higher level spells known hurts (a lot, bar specific builds like tempest cleric / sorcerer). That doen't mean that casters are durable. That are two specific subclasses (out of dozens of caster sub classes), that do have good durability. the idea that casters aren't squishy, with the example of abjurer and moon druid given. Going through this thread, I can't help noticing some stuff. While in practice the hardcore optimizers optimized for the support role, or played caster-only niches, allowing martials to shine. In practice, the folks who didn't optimize much, chose to play a wizard and picked some spells that sounded nice, had reasonably balanced characters. But in 5e, a lot of options (information gathering, teleporting) isn't as reliable as it was, as has been argued by others.Īnd mind you: though caster superiority did exist in 3.x, it was more a theoretical thing than a practical: yeah, you could break the game in half as a caster, but you needed specific builds, or combo's a lot of system mastery, and the mindset that you were ok with breaking a game in half and overshadowing your friends and diminishing their fun. When I see people describe all those wonderful things casters can do, I can't help thinking. Mostly, presumed caster superiority a relic of 3.x, as far as I can see. But a lot also depends on the specific build. but are limited by 1) spells known / prepared, 2) the length of the adventuring day (the second being part of the ymmv-factor). Casters have good AoE, utility, buffing/debuffing. Martials tend to be more durable, do higher damage against single targets, and almost all have fun and unique abilities in addition to doing damage. ![]() They work fine, 5e is over all nicely balanced. ![]() ![]() Discussions like this have HUUUGE ymmv-factor, which partly explains the wildly different opinions.įor me though: hell yes, when we're talking about people arguing caster superiority, that is incorrect, and spellcasters are overrated. But all my games start at level 1, if yours start later (lets say 5), that can be a very different story. My general 5E rule is as follows: Two wizards are going to be better at solving campaigns than two fighters will, but not as good as a team of one wizard and one fighter.My general experience is that a party with 2 wizards never makes it past level 2 without tpk, the game is just too lethal. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |