1) That is a huge negative, it makes certain species far far far more powerful than others simply because they aren't humanoids. It leaves you with parties full of weird monster characters and no humans in a world dominated by humans. It's not uncanny foresight, it is reading guides on the internet to build an optimized character.
2) It absolutely does not shut if off automatically, Lesser Restoration is Touch, Hold Person has range, Lesser Restoration is one target, Hold Person can be up cast to target multiple creatures. Lesser Restoration wastes the "healers" whole turn just for the enemy caster to simply recast Hold Person again on the next round. This is why even though it's available to many classes almost nobody actually takes Lesser Restoration.
3) This is borderline metagaming, and is another huge benefit to ranged characters over melee.
1) They're not "far more powerful", the X person line is a very tiny handful of spells. Moreover, having a nonstandard type is baked into the species' overall power budget. Consider Changelings for example, their fey type and disguise abilities mean they get no combat racials whatsoever. Similarly, Autognomes are constructs but that causes them to eat a healing restriction where they can't benefit from useful spells like Heal or Healing Spirit.
2) It does shut if off automatically, everything you listed is irrelevant to that fact. Sure they can burn resources recasting it next round, and likely waste their action as the target makes their save this time. And most monsters can't upcast now since they don't have standard spellcasting, so the multitarget thing is irrelevant too. Sure you can build a custom monster yourself using PC rules, but at that point you're making a boss anyway.
3) You're being absurd; concentration exists in-universe, knowing it exists and how to deal with it is not "metagaming."
1) That is a huge negative, it makes certain species far far far more powerful than others simply because they aren't humanoids. It leaves you with parties full of weird monster characters and no humans in a world dominated by humans. It's not uncanny foresight, it is reading guides on the internet to build an optimized character.
2) It absolutely does not shut if off automatically, Lesser Restoration is Touch, Hold Person has range, Lesser Restoration is one target, Hold Person can be up cast to target multiple creatures. Lesser Restoration wastes the "healers" whole turn just for the enemy caster to simply recast Hold Person again on the next round. This is why even though it's available to many classes almost nobody actually takes Lesser Restoration.
3) This is borderline metagaming, and is another huge benefit to ranged characters over melee.
1) They're not "far more powerful", the X person line is a very tiny handful of spells. Moreover, having a nonstandard type is baked into the species' overall power budget. Consider Changelings for example, their fey type and disguise abilities mean they get no combat racials whatsoever. Similarly, Autognomes are constructs but that causes them to eat a healing restriction where they can't benefit from useful spells like Heal or Healing Spirit.
2) It does shut if off automatically, everything you listed is irrelevant to that fact. Sure they can burn resources recasting it next round, and likely waste their action as the target makes their save this time. And most monsters can't upcast now since they don't have standard spellcasting, so the multitarget thing is irrelevant too. Sure you can build a custom monster yourself using PC rules, but at that point you're making a boss anyway.
3) You're being absurd; concentration exists in-universe, knowing it exists and how to deal with it is not "metagaming."
1) Autognomes, Satyrs (magic resistance, horn attack, jump bonus, plus skill prof), Centaurs (BA attack, +10 move speed), Plasmoids (move through tiny spaces, two damage resistances, a Thief Rogue's BA object interaction) , and Changlings (effectively alter self at will plus two skill profs) all get tons of powerful additional species features in addition to their change is creature type many including combat features, so I don't know what you are talking about w.r.t. their power budget. Plus, either you can argue that Hold Person is fine & players should encounter is relatively frequently even at low level, or that being immune to that isn't a big deal b/c it will hardly ever come up, but not both.
2) Pretty sure they can still upcast, they just auto-upcast every casting rather than using spellslots. I've definitely seen "fireball[as a 4th level spell]" on some recent monster statblocks.
3) Having your PC know what spell was cast and that such a spell requires concentration is metagaming. RAW you are supposed to use a Reaction and make an Arcana check to determine what spell was cast, so RAW should not know if the spell requires concentration unless you do so and succeed on the check.
1) Autognomes, Satyrs (magic resistance, horn attack, jump bonus, plus skill prof), Centaurs (BA attack, +10 move speed), Plasmoids (move through tiny spaces, two damage resistances, a Thief Rogue's BA object interaction) , and Changlings (effectively alter self at will plus two skill profs) all get tons of powerful additional species features in addition to their change is creature type many including combat features, so I don't know what you are talking about w.r.t. their power budget. Plus, either you can argue that Hold Person is fine & players should encounter is relatively frequently even at low level, or that being immune to that isn't a big deal b/c it will hardly ever come up, but not both.
2) Pretty sure they can still upcast, they just auto-upcast every casting rather than using spellslots. I've definitely seen "fireball[as a 4th level spell]" on some recent monster statblocks.
3) Having your PC know what spell was cast and that such a spell requires concentration is metagaming. RAW you are supposed to use a Reaction and make an Arcana check to determine what spell was cast, so RAW should not know if the spell requires concentration unless you do so and succeed on the check.
1) Why does the spell being fine for its level have to mean that players encounter it frequently? How many Tier 1 monsters in the game are even capable of using it?
2) By the time you get to monsters that are slinging around upcast Hold Person/Monster, your party should have Dispel Magic if you find LR so objectionable, so it's moot.
3) If nobody in your party has Arcana, that's your own bad tactics, not the fault of the spell or rules.
It's pretty rare for lesser restoration (rather than just beating on the source of the spell) to be the correct response to hold person.
To quote Wyll Ravengard, "the best plan is the one that works." I fully agree that breaking the caster's concentration is the ideal approach most of the time, but LR works as a hard counter too, particularly since it handles several other conditions besides paralysis and therefore there's a decent reason to have at least one preparation devoted to it in a given party - and especially given the sheer number of classes with access to it.
I think this idea that everyone should be equal is video gamish stupidity. The guy with a sword should not be as powerful as the person who can throw fireballs and open gates to another planes.
I think this idea that everyone should be equal is video gamish stupidity.
Because video games are always perfectly balanced and people wanting their characters to also feel worth including in the group makes them stupid?
If you can't make a point without insulting people, your point wasn't worth making.
Because D&D is a game, which means its one and only goal should be to enable players to have fun, and that means no character should feel weak or burdensome to a group; magic being overly strong is a choice, and it's the wrong choice. Powerful magic can just as easily mean corresponding costs, or corresponding counters, or comparable alternatives, not having those is again a choice, and it's the wrong choice.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'm not going to be as harsh as deadman but I agree with the sentiment; expecting fighters and wizards to be on totally equal footing is ludicrous. The Avengers need both Thor and Black Widow to function, but the idea to strive for is that they're good at different things, not that they can swap for each other.
I'm not going to be as harsh as deadman but I agree with the sentiment; expecting fighters and wizards to be on totally equal footing is ludicrous.
The core expectation of an RPG is that all the PCs are equally important to the story, which means they all have equal power to influence its progress. They don't have to do it in the same way, but they need similar capability for world-altering actions.
I'm not going to be as harsh as deadman but I agree with the sentiment; expecting fighters and wizards to be on totally equal footing is ludicrous. The Avengers need both Thor and Black Widow to function, but the idea to strive for is that they're good at different things, not that they can swap for each other.
That's not what deadman is arguing for though; what you're asking for is balance which is the same as everyone else, what deadman is saying is that spellcasters should be stronger, and calling everyone who wants balance stupid into the bargain.
The rest of us don't want fighters and spellcasters to be equally good at everything, we want them to contribute (roughly) equally to the party but by specialising in different ways and/or being countered in different ways. Currently though casters have an answer to pretty much everything martials can do, and can even be martials themselves either in bursts (via weapon spells), or most of the time in the case of hybrid classes or sub-classes like Blade Singer and College of Swords (neither is especially powerful as a martial, but they're still full casters on top).
Some of this is the fault of power creep from newer sub-classes, or the abundance of magic items that counteract weaknesses/limitations (need more spellcasting resources? Simply offload some of your casting to a staff or scrolls etc. and so-on), but the core problem exists in the 5e basic rules. OneD&D has taken some positive steps, but as I've pointed out in my feedback response to every single UA release, they still don't seem to be going far enough (though they've also shown us very little in practice, and said very little about how they're balancing).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
If spell casters were pure damage dealers, I don't think there would be a problem. I think that when spellcasters start to have a spell to solve problems in the martial spheres of influence, there's a problem. I think there's a problem with crowd control in general when spell casters can just delete monsters from the action for a time. Those are the sort of imbalances that need to be resolved.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Not to pick on DMs, but doesn't this just go back to the idea that spellcasters have finite resources while martials don't to the same degree? A pure caster with no spell slots is not doing anything of note except some skill checks and certainly isn't contributing to any fight. A warrior with a used up action surge can still consistently output damage or do any of the number of things they are capable of. If the caster in your party always has the solution and the ability to implement it, is that not able to be solved by draining the caster of that ability before they get a chance to replenish it?
Perhaps I'm unconsciously advocating for fewer caster resources as a base so the burden isn't all on the DM...
If spell casters were pure damage dealers, I don't think there would be a problem. I think that when spellcasters start to have a spell to solve problems in the martial spheres of influence, there's a problem. I think there's a problem with crowd control in general when spell casters can just delete monsters from the action for a time. Those are the sort of imbalances that need to be resolved.
Sure but then WotC solves that by giving banishment a saving throw each round to end it and there's an eruption of complaints about how the spell is useless now. Casters have too many resources and too many spells available to them. TBH I like sorcerer the way it is in the 2014 PHB because their limited number of spells known really forces you to specialize as a spellcaster and you just can't have the solution to every problem available all the time, Tasha's subclasses with extra spells has made them far too powerful. If one simply reduced all spellcasters to the same number of spells known/prepared as sorcerers and then reduced the number of spell slots of each spell level they get by 1, then we'd have a much better balanced game.
Not to pick on DMs, but doesn't this just go back to the idea that spellcasters have finite resources while martials don't to the same degree?
No. First of all, that tends to encourage the five minute workday, which is bad gameplay, so balancing based on time-based resources isn't particularly good design to start with. Secondly, combat balance isn't really the problem, there are plenty of fights where a decently geared martial character is more dangerous than a spellcaster.
Not to pick on DMs, but doesn't this just go back to the idea that spellcasters have finite resources while martials don't to the same degree? A pure caster with no spell slots is not doing anything of note except some skill checks and certainly isn't contributing to any fight. A warrior with a used up action surge can still consistently output damage or do any of the number of things they are capable of. If the caster in your party always has the solution and the ability to implement it, is that not able to be solved by draining the caster of that ability before they get a chance to replenish it?
Perhaps I'm unconsciously advocating for fewer caster resources as a base so the burden isn't all on the DM...
That's certainly true, but it also comes to another of the major issues with 5e, which is that the adventuring day it was designed around bears little or no relation to how many groups want to play, and DMs don't have any good tools for dealing with that.
It would have been much better if all classes were balanced around a core of fewer short rest resources, with a small number of long rest bonuses on top, as it would be significantly easier for DMs to balance for any style of play.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
@Agilemind: Interestingly, this is exactly what I was going to write at first, but then erased it and ended up with my first reply. I actually think wizards could even do with fewer cast spells per day or memorized spells than sorcerers, where what they get in return is access to that huge library of spells that they can swap out if they were able to have some foreknowledge. Essentially, memorize general purpose, low impact spells if you don't know what's coming, and memorize specific, high impact spells for a situation that you were able to scout out beforehand.
Is omnislashing looked down upon here? Guess I'm about to find out...
@Pantagruel666: It can encourage it all it wants, but the DM has control over whether they get that or not. Maybe if the party was FORCED into 5 encounters before their long rest, the caster will learn to not blow their wad in the first one, and at the same time be less effective in each one as a result. My point about combat wasn't really meant for you, but the fact is that casters tend to be more nova (whether it's a fireball into a group or hold monster to effectively take something out of the fight for a time), whereas martials tend to be more sustained (again, dictated by the type of resources they use... or not). The problem arises in combat balance when the nova gets to nova every combat. And sure, a martial with all their resources can be more dangerous than a caster in pure damage in some situations, but a caster's out of combat utility it tied to the exact same resources they use IN combat. For a martial, that's not really the case.
@Haravikk: Point taken. 4e was kind of like this, I feel. But then, 4e was basically D&D: the tabletop combat sim.
@Pantagruel666: It can encourage it all it wants, but the DM has control over whether they get that or not.
Not unless it's a serious railroad game. The DM has influence over it, but it's rare that it's actually impossible to take a rest, and there's a limit to how many ticking clock scenarios you can plausibly run. If you really want to make resource conservation a thing... remove time-gating completely. You get to take a rest when you've gained X experience.
I'm not going to be as harsh as deadman but I agree with the sentiment; expecting fighters and wizards to be on totally equal footing is ludicrous.
The core expectation of an RPG is that all the PCs are equally important to the story, which means they all have equal power to influence its progress. They don't have to do it in the same way, but they need similar capability for world-altering actions.
So are superhero RPGs not RPGs then? And if they are, is your expectation that Green Arrow and Daredevil have the same "capability for world-altering actions" as Superman and Storm?
I'm not going to be as harsh as deadman but I agree with the sentiment; expecting fighters and wizards to be on totally equal footing is ludicrous. The Avengers need both Thor and Black Widow to function, but the idea to strive for is that they're good at different things, not that they can swap for each other.
That's not what deadman is arguing for though; what you're asking for is balance which is the same as everyone else, what deadman is saying is that spellcasters should be stronger, and calling everyone who wants balance stupid into the bargain.
I'm not calling anyone stupid for wanting balance, but I too am saying spellcasters should be stronger. Balance is one among many priorities for an RPG to strive for, but not the most important one; if you want a D&D that values balance above all other concerns, 4e hasn't gone anywhere. It's not what most D&D fans actually want.
So are superhero RPGs not RPGs then? And if they are, is your expectation that Green Arrow and Daredevil have the same "capability for world-altering actions" as Superman and Storm?
Superhero RPGs have two answer to that question
The game is structured so the answer is "yes".
The game is structured so they aren't played in the same game, and more than you would put a level 3 and a level 20 in the same game.
So are superhero RPGs not RPGs then? And if they are, is your expectation that Green Arrow and Daredevil have the same "capability for world-altering actions" as Superman and Storm?
Superhero RPGs have two answer to that question
The game is structured so the answer is "yes".
The game is structured so they aren't played in the same game, and more than you would put a level 3 and a level 20 in the same game.
We disagree then, because the ones I've seen definitely let you play Storm and Hawkeye in the same game. And "fantasy superheroes" is ultimately a big part of what D&D is. Again, if that's not what you want out of your D&D and you don't want to do a bunch of houserules, 4e is still available.
We disagree then, because the ones I've seen definitely let you play Storm and Hawkeye in the same game.
It's technically possible. It's just that it doesn't actually happen because it doesn't work (well, storm and hawkeye could possibly work). It doesn't even work very well in comic books with a writer, they tend to rely on having the more powerful characters pick up the idiot ball, be massively downpowered, or just forget half the things they would be able to do in their own comic book.
If we look at a game with a similar simulation level to D&D (mutants and masterminds), a credible Green Arrow would be around PL 8, while Superman will generally wind up being PL 20+ (M&M PLs are quite a lot more extreme than 5e levels).
1) They're not "far more powerful", the X person line is a very tiny handful of spells. Moreover, having a nonstandard type is baked into the species' overall power budget. Consider Changelings for example, their fey type and disguise abilities mean they get no combat racials whatsoever. Similarly, Autognomes are constructs but that causes them to eat a healing restriction where they can't benefit from useful spells like Heal or Healing Spirit.
2) It does shut if off automatically, everything you listed is irrelevant to that fact. Sure they can burn resources recasting it next round, and likely waste their action as the target makes their save this time. And most monsters can't upcast now since they don't have standard spellcasting, so the multitarget thing is irrelevant too. Sure you can build a custom monster yourself using PC rules, but at that point you're making a boss anyway.
3) You're being absurd; concentration exists in-universe, knowing it exists and how to deal with it is not "metagaming."
1) Autognomes, Satyrs (magic resistance, horn attack, jump bonus, plus skill prof), Centaurs (BA attack, +10 move speed), Plasmoids (move through tiny spaces, two damage resistances, a Thief Rogue's BA object interaction) , and Changlings (effectively alter self at will plus two skill profs) all get tons of powerful additional species features in addition to their change is creature type many including combat features, so I don't know what you are talking about w.r.t. their power budget. Plus, either you can argue that Hold Person is fine & players should encounter is relatively frequently even at low level, or that being immune to that isn't a big deal b/c it will hardly ever come up, but not both.
2) Pretty sure they can still upcast, they just auto-upcast every casting rather than using spellslots. I've definitely seen "fireball[as a 4th level spell]" on some recent monster statblocks.
3) Having your PC know what spell was cast and that such a spell requires concentration is metagaming. RAW you are supposed to use a Reaction and make an Arcana check to determine what spell was cast, so RAW should not know if the spell requires concentration unless you do so and succeed on the check.
It's pretty rare for lesser restoration (rather than just beating on the source of the spell) to be the correct response to hold person.
1) Why does the spell being fine for its level have to mean that players encounter it frequently? How many Tier 1 monsters in the game are even capable of using it?
2) By the time you get to monsters that are slinging around upcast Hold Person/Monster, your party should have Dispel Magic if you find LR so objectionable, so it's moot.
3) If nobody in your party has Arcana, that's your own bad tactics, not the fault of the spell or rules.
To quote Wyll Ravengard, "the best plan is the one that works." I fully agree that breaking the caster's concentration is the ideal approach most of the time, but LR works as a hard counter too, particularly since it handles several other conditions besides paralysis and therefore there's a decent reason to have at least one preparation devoted to it in a given party - and especially given the sheer number of classes with access to it.
I think this idea that everyone should be equal is video gamish stupidity. The guy with a sword should not be as powerful as the person who can throw fireballs and open gates to another planes.
Because video games are always perfectly balanced and people wanting their characters to also feel worth including in the group makes them stupid?
If you can't make a point without insulting people, your point wasn't worth making.
Because D&D is a game, which means its one and only goal should be to enable players to have fun, and that means no character should feel weak or burdensome to a group; magic being overly strong is a choice, and it's the wrong choice. Powerful magic can just as easily mean corresponding costs, or corresponding counters, or comparable alternatives, not having those is again a choice, and it's the wrong choice.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'm not going to be as harsh as deadman but I agree with the sentiment; expecting fighters and wizards to be on totally equal footing is ludicrous. The Avengers need both Thor and Black Widow to function, but the idea to strive for is that they're good at different things, not that they can swap for each other.
The core expectation of an RPG is that all the PCs are equally important to the story, which means they all have equal power to influence its progress. They don't have to do it in the same way, but they need similar capability for world-altering actions.
That's not what deadman is arguing for though; what you're asking for is balance which is the same as everyone else, what deadman is saying is that spellcasters should be stronger, and calling everyone who wants balance stupid into the bargain.
The rest of us don't want fighters and spellcasters to be equally good at everything, we want them to contribute (roughly) equally to the party but by specialising in different ways and/or being countered in different ways. Currently though casters have an answer to pretty much everything martials can do, and can even be martials themselves either in bursts (via weapon spells), or most of the time in the case of hybrid classes or sub-classes like Blade Singer and College of Swords (neither is especially powerful as a martial, but they're still full casters on top).
Some of this is the fault of power creep from newer sub-classes, or the abundance of magic items that counteract weaknesses/limitations (need more spellcasting resources? Simply offload some of your casting to a staff or scrolls etc. and so-on), but the core problem exists in the 5e basic rules. OneD&D has taken some positive steps, but as I've pointed out in my feedback response to every single UA release, they still don't seem to be going far enough (though they've also shown us very little in practice, and said very little about how they're balancing).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
If spell casters were pure damage dealers, I don't think there would be a problem. I think that when spellcasters start to have a spell to solve problems in the martial spheres of influence, there's a problem. I think there's a problem with crowd control in general when spell casters can just delete monsters from the action for a time. Those are the sort of imbalances that need to be resolved.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Not to pick on DMs, but doesn't this just go back to the idea that spellcasters have finite resources while martials don't to the same degree? A pure caster with no spell slots is not doing anything of note except some skill checks and certainly isn't contributing to any fight. A warrior with a used up action surge can still consistently output damage or do any of the number of things they are capable of. If the caster in your party always has the solution and the ability to implement it, is that not able to be solved by draining the caster of that ability before they get a chance to replenish it?
Perhaps I'm unconsciously advocating for fewer caster resources as a base so the burden isn't all on the DM...
Sure but then WotC solves that by giving banishment a saving throw each round to end it and there's an eruption of complaints about how the spell is useless now. Casters have too many resources and too many spells available to them. TBH I like sorcerer the way it is in the 2014 PHB because their limited number of spells known really forces you to specialize as a spellcaster and you just can't have the solution to every problem available all the time, Tasha's subclasses with extra spells has made them far too powerful. If one simply reduced all spellcasters to the same number of spells known/prepared as sorcerers and then reduced the number of spell slots of each spell level they get by 1, then we'd have a much better balanced game.
No. First of all, that tends to encourage the five minute workday, which is bad gameplay, so balancing based on time-based resources isn't particularly good design to start with. Secondly, combat balance isn't really the problem, there are plenty of fights where a decently geared martial character is more dangerous than a spellcaster.
That's certainly true, but it also comes to another of the major issues with 5e, which is that the adventuring day it was designed around bears little or no relation to how many groups want to play, and DMs don't have any good tools for dealing with that.
It would have been much better if all classes were balanced around a core of fewer short rest resources, with a small number of long rest bonuses on top, as it would be significantly easier for DMs to balance for any style of play.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
@Agilemind: Interestingly, this is exactly what I was going to write at first, but then erased it and ended up with my first reply. I actually think wizards could even do with fewer cast spells per day or memorized spells than sorcerers, where what they get in return is access to that huge library of spells that they can swap out if they were able to have some foreknowledge. Essentially, memorize general purpose, low impact spells if you don't know what's coming, and memorize specific, high impact spells for a situation that you were able to scout out beforehand.
Is omnislashing looked down upon here? Guess I'm about to find out...
@Pantagruel666: It can encourage it all it wants, but the DM has control over whether they get that or not. Maybe if the party was FORCED into 5 encounters before their long rest, the caster will learn to not blow their wad in the first one, and at the same time be less effective in each one as a result. My point about combat wasn't really meant for you, but the fact is that casters tend to be more nova (whether it's a fireball into a group or hold monster to effectively take something out of the fight for a time), whereas martials tend to be more sustained (again, dictated by the type of resources they use... or not). The problem arises in combat balance when the nova gets to nova every combat. And sure, a martial with all their resources can be more dangerous than a caster in pure damage in some situations, but a caster's out of combat utility it tied to the exact same resources they use IN combat. For a martial, that's not really the case.
@Haravikk: Point taken. 4e was kind of like this, I feel. But then, 4e was basically D&D: the tabletop combat sim.
Not unless it's a serious railroad game. The DM has influence over it, but it's rare that it's actually impossible to take a rest, and there's a limit to how many ticking clock scenarios you can plausibly run. If you really want to make resource conservation a thing... remove time-gating completely. You get to take a rest when you've gained X experience.
So are superhero RPGs not RPGs then? And if they are, is your expectation that Green Arrow and Daredevil have the same "capability for world-altering actions" as Superman and Storm?
I'm not calling anyone stupid for wanting balance, but I too am saying spellcasters should be stronger. Balance is one among many priorities for an RPG to strive for, but not the most important one; if you want a D&D that values balance above all other concerns, 4e hasn't gone anywhere. It's not what most D&D fans actually want.
Superhero RPGs have two answer to that question
We disagree then, because the ones I've seen definitely let you play Storm and Hawkeye in the same game. And "fantasy superheroes" is ultimately a big part of what D&D is. Again, if that's not what you want out of your D&D and you don't want to do a bunch of houserules, 4e is still available.
It's technically possible. It's just that it doesn't actually happen because it doesn't work (well, storm and hawkeye could possibly work). It doesn't even work very well in comic books with a writer, they tend to rely on having the more powerful characters pick up the idiot ball, be massively downpowered, or just forget half the things they would be able to do in their own comic book.
If we look at a game with a similar simulation level to D&D (mutants and masterminds), a credible Green Arrow would be around PL 8, while Superman will generally wind up being PL 20+ (M&M PLs are quite a lot more extreme than 5e levels).