D&D (2024) Survey Launch | Player's Handbook Playtest 5 | Unearthed Arcana | D&D

[Hayato]

To be honest, the problem with 4e wasn't all classes acting like wizards, it's actually a big move to balance classes with each other. The real problem with the 4th edition is the system itself. Look at the 5th edition, it's a much more reliable and mature system, especially with bounded accuracy. For me, WotC should have only 4 classes (the warrior, the mage, the specialist and the priest), well balanced among themselves, than leaving 12 without any guidelines.

Do you want a barbarian or a monk? Just choose The Fighter class and choose unarmored defense. Do you want a Warrior? Just choose armored defense and so on. The same with weapons. You don't need rage and other stuffs to create a barbarian. At heart, the barbarian is a fighter like the fighter himself. The same can be said for Sorcerer & Wizard and Druid & Cleric. They wasted a lot of time trying to differentiate classes that are so difficult to balance with each other. WotC should look at what they did with Warlock and then recreate it for all 4 classes, letting the player choose every skill or specialty their character should have.

Lastly, let martials (aka warriors and specialists) have moves like spells. They deserve it. There is no need to be that simple and there are so many players that want this, if you don't agree with me you should just look at some threads and videos about martial arts vs spellcasting. It's time to move on and let martials be way more deep mechanically.

 

[Minigiant]

To be honest, the problem with 4e wasn't all classes acting like wizards, it's actually a big move to balance classes with each other. The real problem with the 4th edition is the system itself. Look at the 5th edition, it's a much more reliable and mature system, especially with bounded accuracy. For me, WotC should have only 4 classes (the warrior, the mage, the specialist and the priest), well balanced among themselves, than leaving 12 without any guidelines.

Do you want a barbarian or a monk? Just choose The Fighter class and choose unarmored defense. Do you want a Warrior? Just choose armored defense and so on. The same with weapons. You don't need rage and other stuffs to create a barbarian. At heart, the barbarian is a fighter like the fighter himself. The same can be said for Sorcerer & Wizard and Druid & Cleric. They wasted a lot of time trying to differentiate classes that are so difficult to balance with each other. WotC should look at what they did with Warlock and then recreate it for all 4 classes, letting the player choose every skill or specialty their character should have.

This design aged out as the gateway entry ROG back in the 80s.


The first thing the designers, players, and DMs ask for after making a simple game is more classes, races, skills, and stuff.

We have game coming out of Kickstarter with the books not even shipped and getting new customization stuff due to demand.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Do you want a barbarian or a monk? Just choose The Fighter class and choose unarmored defense.

The whole point of a class system is for a player to look at the class's name and go 'I want that one'. Not to look at a vague grouping and mix-and-match something to their liking.

If anything, DnD should have a lot more classes, each existing in its own design space (instead of Rogue subclasses resting on Sneak Attack, and Eldritch Knight getting hampered because Fighter extra extra attacks exist).

 

[mamba]

Unless you can fly.

that is the point, now the enemy has to fly because of the flier in the party.

You started by saying no adjustments are needed because of fliers, and now we end up with ‘if the enemy can also fly’, great, proving my point there

Did not quote the other excuses

So many other games don't have any issue with cheap and plentiful flight, but only D&D teaches DMs to fear one of five characters not having to waste time climbing a cliff

I do not fear them, I do not like it. It trivializes too much. Not sure what the ‘many other games’ are

 

[HammerMan]

Then your experience is so different from my own that I don’t know what the heck your casters are doing on their turn.

Trying to place the AOE to target max number of opponents and min (hopefully 0) Allie’s then describing spell then rolling damage all the while the DM has to roll all the saves.
8d20 vs AC is much quicker

Of course, I keep consistently talking about damage spells while the people replying to me with veiled “I don’t beleive you” posts keep talking about all spells, so I don’t really think I’m getting much genuine engagement on this subject, at this point.

I am mostly talking damage but only cause a control spell is worse. “Okay so this grabs targets and creates hazardous terrain”

I literally have never seen a spell like fireball take more time than it takes to resolve 2-3 attacks.

Let’s use fireball. Since it is your example.
Let’s say the fight JUST started and no one is in melee (no Allie’s to worry about) we start with counting out the area and seeing if we can get all the enemies. Let’s say we can hit 4 of them. Then the caster rolls a ton of d6 s and adds then (Roll20 speeds this part up) then the DM has to look up 4 dex saves check to see if they have magic and or fire resist then roll 4 saves and figure out half and quarter damage depending on make/miss save and resist.

Fighter with 3 attacks action surge 3 more will pull longbow shoot 6 times roll 6d20 to hit and on hits roll damage.

Both then (or maybe first for melee) count squares to move.

It literally takes seconds. Like…what the hell is going on here? Do you have caster players who are co fused by how fireball works?

Fireball no that one we mostly know by heart but we have to look up burning hands or cone of cold for size and most others for range and figure who we can and can’t hit.

Is the DM making a dramatic show of each and every saving throw while the fighter is sticking purely to mechanical language?

I would say mechanic vs fluff is about the same for both with us.

Like…are seriously saying that two players, both playing the same way with the same knowledge of their character’s abilities, fireball takes long than the time it takes to make a few attacks? Seriously? How!?

Because the fighter (or any even a hexblade or blade singer or armor artificer) has made so many melee attacks and can do it no issues. The caster (again it can be the same bladesinger or hexblade in this case) has a dozen spells so they have to adjust for the one they are useing. If it is. The most common one they use it goes easier but never as easy as “x attacks”

 

[HammerMan]

I don’t understand how you could need more time to resolve fireball. Saves take trivial time, as does rolling damage.

I just did the best case (no one in melee) let’s do round 3 of a fight. 7 enemies with 3 alies in melee. Do I hit 3 but one of us do I hit all 7 but all 3 of us? Is there a way to get 5 and 2?
Now 2 resist fire and 5 don’t. 1 with fire resist and 1 without have magic resistance. So let’s say I hit the 2 with magic resist and 2 others. Now I need to roll two with advantage then 2 without (I can roll those last two together) then I record full half or quarter damage

 

[Vaalingrade]

that is the point, now the enemy has to fly because of the flier in the party.

You started by saying no adjustments are needed because of fliers, and now we end up with ‘if the enemy can also fly’, great, proving my point there

Did not quote the other excuses

You do realize that my post is still like... on the message board, right? Just taking it out of context with zero extra effort and then adding that you did so right under it isn't going to work all that well.

 

[Charlaquin]

To be honest, the problem with 4e wasn't all classes acting like wizards, it's actually a big move to balance classes with each other.

Tell that to the folks in 2009, they were quite vocal about feeling the opposite.

The real problem with the 4th edition is the system itself. Look at the 5th edition, it's a much more reliable and mature system, especially with bounded accuracy.

What does “reliable and mature” mean in a game system? Certainly you can’t mean more mathematically consistent, as 5e is definitely not that compared to 4e. I love Bounded Accuracy, but calling it “reliable and mature” is laughable. It’s in no way a superior design direction than scaling bonuses and target numbers by level. Each are perfectly valid design choices, which serve different goals.

 

[Chaosmancer]

you can cover the distance to ranged attackers, you cannot do so for fliers.

And the ranged character can increase the distance. That is known as "kiting". And if you are doing solo play, and have the range to completely out range your opponent, you likely have the range to make multiple turns of attacks. Most enemies aren't major threats after you've had six free turns to shoot them.

Barricades are not a problem for fliers

But they are for the rest of the party. And if you have sharpshooter a barrier is only effective if it is total cover. And if your enemy has total cover from you... you have total cover from them.

Additionally, Roofs are a thing. Those are barriers to the sky. As are trees. Or are we assuming a perfectly flat plain with only grass and a wall.

Getting to hard to reach points is not a problem for fliers

You are absolutely correct. Which is why Find Familiar is so useful, with its tiny flying creature that can get into hard to reach places and is a 1st level ritual. Additionally, there is the small matter of the REST OF THE PARTY who cannot get to that hard to reach place. "Well, the flier will tie a rope-" cool, just like a familiar can.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Tell that to the folks in 2009, they were quite vocal about feeling the opposite.

...without ever playing the game! Truly a remarkably clairvoyant set of people!

But yes, that reaction is why DnD can never again give martials actual effective tools. Because those are all delivered in the spell format.