D&D 5E You Cant Fix The Class Imbalances IMHO

[Minigiant]

WOTC came into the 2024 PHB survey asking what the core ranger class features was even though the class was out in this edition for nine years.

THAT is where class imbalance comes from

You can fix class imbalance. It's not like people don't want any form of balance

You just have to make a stand somewhere.

Edit:

WOTC was essentially like Marvel making a Spiderman product but not choosing whether it's Peter Parker, Miles Morales, Ben Reilly, or Gwen Stacy.

You can't balance classes if some classes have defined tropes and others are wishy washy

 

[MichaelSomething]

Edit:

WOTC was essentially like Marvel making a Spiderman product but not choosing whether it's Peter Parker, Miles Morales, Ben Reilly, or Gwen Stacy.

You can't balance classes if some classes have defined tropes and others are wishy washy

Into the SpiderVerse has all of them and more and that turned out great! You should consider changing your example.

 

[Minigiant]

Into the SpiderVerse has all of them and more and that turned out great! You should consider changing your example.

The point is they are all Spiderman and have different personalities and tropes. Peter is not like Miles who is not like Gwen.

Heck the last animated Spiderman movies is about this.

So if you create a generic Spiderman, you mostly have only have the attraction to the product as you aren't hitting many of the core tropes.

 

[Umbran]

The chance that WotC will try to make the game less terrible, when being terrible appears to be delivering revenue growth are nil.

Mod Note:
Your language use and insinuations make it look like you are actively seeking to aggravate and annoy people, or are otherwise looking for a fight.

Note that if a fight does come up... you'll be partly responsible, and will likely be held to that.

Please take that into consideration going forward.

 

[Umbran]

..., or people who constantly complain about it and act like they're being persecuted and victimized when classes aren't as OP as they want them to be?

Mod Note:
With this rather insulting description, you have signaled, and pretty much guaranteed, that you'll have no further meaningful discourse with those that disagree with you on this topic, as they are cheesed off at you, and you are apt to just dump them into that bucket anyway.

If you choose to go forward in this discussion, we are going to expect you treat people better than this. If you don't want to, please remove yourself from the discussion now. Thanks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Thank you for the information, and especially about the warning. I did some reading, and whilst the concept of the game seems interesting, due the person behind it I wouldn't touch this with a ten feet pole.

Your call, but it is amazing design work, and as I've said I've never seen anything from him that would give me pause about his character.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Your call, but it is amazing design work, and as I've said I've never seen anything from him that would give me pause about his character.

His association with Milo Yiannopoulos and his ilk is enough for me to not to want to have anything to do with him. But I'm afraid this is veering into topics that are not meant for this forum.

 

[ECMO3]

yes, that is why they choose to


the satisfaction rating might tell a different story

It might and it might not.

Logic and reason would suggest that experience players who choose to play fighters do so because they like the class design. Otherwise they would choose a different class.

I am not satisfied with Druids, Barbarians or Artificers and as a result in 10ish years of 5E I have only played 1 Barbarian, 1 Artificer and no Druids, while I have played a dozen Rogues and Rangers or more and multiple examples of every other class except Paladin (I have only played 1 Paladin).

My personal observations would indicate the same - that people who play fighters seem to generally like fighters. I know for a fact I do and find the class very satisfying when I play it. I will note that I don't think I would find every subclass satisfying. Looking at the class design, I don't think I would be satisfied with Battlemasters, Champions or Samaurais and as such I have never played those subclasses. I have played Arcane Archers, Rune Knights, Eldritch Knights and one Cavalier and I loved all those ighters.

 

[TwoSix]

I...

I reject that this is a trope of D&D.

If you can name me an edition other than 4e where the wizard wasn’t the strongest class at max level, I’d love to hear it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It might and it might not.

Logic and reason would suggest that experience players who choose to play fighters do so because they like the class design. Otherwise they would choose a different class.

D&D has been in a period of rapid growth for going on 10 years, new players are driving that.
The data we have on class popularity doesn't differentiate. Does the 12% hold for players of all experience levels? Or are new players choosing fighter in higher numbers, balancing out more experienced ones playing it less?

I played fighter MCs more than anything else for the run of 3.x, I did like the design (it was elegant & customizable), but I recognized that it was pretty far behind the curve and would be a challenge to build & play effectively. Experienced players make those sorts of decisions too.