Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate III by Larian Studios - Early Access announcement on June 13th

If managing cooldowns are a chore on video games, imagine on TTRPG's... Imagine a wizard that knows 60 spells managing the cooldown of each one in a TT game.

4e had some at will spells that require waiting time per rounds and 4e is the worst edition ever.

Yep. But unlesss you are lv 20 and did a AMAZING job for the Sorcerer King, no way that the sorcerer king would reward you with a scroll with the spell which deals a massive OHK damage in a area and for each victim who failed the fortitude save, +1 year of life to the caster. I believe that they have that scroll.

As for Netheril, to cast tier 11 spells, you need to be at least lv 35 to cast in Netheril. See page 18 of the book : Netheril : Empire of magic.



And Karsus when he casted Karsus Avatar was AT LEAST lv 40.

This is why makes no sense when the "next level : godhood" appears for lv 30 characters on icewind dale... You need to be at least lv 40 to be able to cast a spell that can turn you into a deity. And some people here pretends that lv 11 is reaching godhood...

 

men that wear dresses shouldn't be powerful so it makes sense that spellcasters are weak

 

fixed for you.

PS : Clerics and Warlocks on 3.5e can cast inside armor with no problem.

 

It was 4E by name, a system that could have been used for tactical rpg, but even tha

Thats for 2e right ? I think i remember to become a dragon in dark sun, which is pretty close to godhood, you needed 20 level in defiler + 20 level in psionics as well .

 

Yep. And Chronos on 5e who is considered a godslayer is if i remember correctly CR 55(not sure), people here saying that a lv 5 to 20 adventure is ascension to godhood when in reality, a lv 20 character needs a very long road to become powerful as the weakest lesser deity. Demigods, maybe 6 lv 20 guys with careful planing, lucky and DM favoritism can defeat one. And note : i an saying maybe. Demon Lords are far weaker than Gods and Demogorgon is CR 23 on 3.5e according to wiki. https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Demogorgon

 

In 5e anyone with proficiency can cast in armor no problem (one of many reasons that Paladin/Sorc and Paladin/Warlock multiclasses are the munchkin's choice build, personally I like Eldritch Knight/Wizard). Armor proficiencies are pretty easy to get.

 

Imagine if there were a perfect middle ground like armored pajamas. Man, how cool would that be?

 

What i think interesting is. Here in Codex, you have people that love to play as mages(like myself), people that love monks(Pinkie eye), people that love Barbarians, but i don't know anyone that love Fighters.... Anyway, one good thing about lv cap = 10, is that it limits the pun pun builds. So, clerics of a lawful good deity with a warlock pact with a chaotic evil demon will gonna suffer.

 

You'd be surprised if you knew how many codexers love their dwarves fighters.

 

D&D casters need a staggered spell level progression that goes up to lvl 6 at most. Lvl 7+ is where the real craziness starts happening because it feels like the devs/writers are running out of ideas and just throwing everything bonkers they can think of in there. They are less characters and more debug consoles at that point.

There's nothing there to really love. Fighters have been multiclass filler that add a substantial martial power boost for little investment for quite a while now. At least since AD&D.

 

pure fighter is boring.
but fighter/x gishes are much more fun to play than pure x

 

Fighter was always intended to be the class for new players.

 

They've got stuff to love in 5e I would say because they've finally got more to do than "I attack."
Well, not Champions, but Battlemaster and Cavalier are cool. So is Eldritch Knight but they are a gish and not a normal fighter.

Almost always true, unless it works better as Paladin/X.

 

The Battle Master archetype in D&D 5E is pretty cool. The maneuvers give you a variety of minor abilities which are fun and sensible. Otherwise, boring. In a system & setting with magic everywhere, the guy who is only good at swinging a sword stops making sense. They can make a decent 1 level dip for many classes in 5E, but otherwise, there always feels like a more enjoyable option.

PS: Lawntoilet is right about Eldritch Knights. I forgot that they were a fighter archetype. Still, it's decent because it's not much like a fighter.

 

The only archetype who is "only good at swinging a sword" is Champion (maybe Banneret, but I would contend that Banneret isn't very good at anything).
Of course once fullcasters get 6th/7th level spells or higher most other classes start feeling less relevant.

 

Thankfully it changes in the video game adaptations. When you need to manage 6 people having one guy who doesn't need any help to be good at what he does and is also good at not getting killed is a godsend.

 

What makes casters so much powerful is when the DM and the player doesn't create characters/settings that makes sense· For eg, on pathfinder a sorcerer of silver draconic bloodline casting sirroco makes ZERO sense. Doesn't matter how cool and powerful the spell is. A scroll of finger of death being easier to obtain than a vorpal weapon makes zero sense. 5e limited far more than 3.5e how much spells after tier 5 arcane casters can cast but also made cantrips at will and greater.

Warlocks are considered the weakest 5e arcane caster because they have a very limited spell selection and their patron can teach (not gave, they aren't clerics) few other spells, so if you have lurker as a patron, you can't learn fireball. At the same way that if you have a fiendhish patron, you can't learn cone of cold. If you force casters roleplay how they obtain magical power and scrolls, much of their power is lost. Just like with multiclassing. It can create pun pun builds and can not.

As for martial classes, i have heard that Barbarians are great on 5e. But never read much about the class.

I personally like fighter companions in games with dumb IA because i need to micromanage they way less.

 

I think this is the first time I've agreed with one of your posts

 

I agree with you & Lacrymas on this point. Players shouldn't have access to magic beyond the 6th without going epic, but the system would basically need to stop advancing at Level 10, much like AD&D. There is too much legacy to go back now though. 5E has struck a fairly equitable balance, but I'm not sure how much more it can evolve.

I agree about Sorcerers. I feel like they should have significantly more restricted spell lists. Like clerics of earlier editions, they should only have access to spells that their bloodline/domain has descriptors for.

 

Fighters and Warlocks will be top-tier in BG3 with automatic short rests after every single combat.

 

There are some E10 rules out there that I like in theory, in practice I just plan my campaigns to end around level 9-12. I'm playing in a level 19 game and it is its own kind of fun, but nobody in our party is playing a pure martial either and I'm sure that is helping.

Sorcerers should have a more restricted list and it should be influenced by their subclass, but they should also get more spells known than they currently do (which is fewer spells than a half-caster can memorize, at high levels) in my opinion.

 

Yes 20 is nowhere near godhood, the DM manual gives you a few ideas on how to keep playing past 20 but its unsatisfying , a title there a boon that, bleh.. Not that many people will play past 20 anyway, 10 seems the end of the world here...But it was way more fleshed out in older editions.
So a demon lord like demogorgon is CR26 in 5E , its doable for 4 level 20 players, in the encounter calculator it only rates it as 2X deadly . However i dont really portray a solo fight with that you need to add him a few more goons and raise the encounter to deadly 3X level at least, that doesnt mean TPK but that at least one character is going to get downed.

 

probably warlocks will be just like how they were in nwn2.

 

I thought I was the only one!

 

NO, warlocks on nwn2 are a abomination. They are so weak that even i who hate number inflation and cooldowns prefer to play DDO as warlock than vanilla nwn2... With warlock reworked that makes the class more in line with P&P(But doesn't fix all invocation), the story is different.

IMO each bloodline should give spell restrictions, not only on spells Eg:

• Water elemental/silver/white draconic = You can't learn spells with "fire" descriptor and get vulnerability to fire damage
• Fire elemental/red/gold draconic = You can't learn spells with "cold" descriptor and get vulnerability to cold damage
• Undead/Vampiric bloodline = +2 DC of necromancy spells. Can't learn spells from illusion school, -3 DEX penalty and vulnerability to radiant damage
• Abyssal = Can't learn spells from enchantment school. Risk of suffering rage when you fail a concentration check. Your alignment needs to be Chaotic evil, Neutral evil or Chaotic neutral to use your spells.

And so on. What people complain about arcane casters is not their raw power, because a well builded and eqquiped barbarian can cause way more damage. A kineticist on pathfinder too. Is their versatility. Mainly for generalist wizards with a complete spellbook. Unfortunately many players doesn't like having weakness. I personally like to create characters with flaws, vulnerabilities and negative scores...