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

[Minigiant]

I still think the whole thing is about images and tropes.

D&D fans and WOTC agree on what the tropes and images of all the full spellcaster. The Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard get spells at every other level which display what they are able to do. You go from your library of 1st level spells all the way to your list of 9th level spells..

Even for the half casters there is a sort of argument on what the paladin and ranger are supposed to able to do. Maybe not the power level and the level of love. The half casters need better unique spells or uses of them and surveys stated that is what the community wants.

But for the classes without a spell progression, the non casters, the D&D community differs on which tropes they have and is split on them. And WOTC is anxious about defining the class tropes. They've focused on subclass tropes which leaves the classes hollow. And the subclasses don't have enough appearances to pick up the slack. What is a fighter? barbarian? monk? It's all about Champion Battlemaster, Berserker, Wildheart, Four Elements, Open Hand. Rogue is the only standout having both a sneak attack and skill feature progression.

 

[James Gasik]

It's the fact that the creators explicitly disallow male characters from being Bladedancers, that they want only the fantasy of female cleric-esque warriors without armour to exist.

That's a campaign choice, and it's pretty minor in my book compared to stuff actual old school games did, like 1e's cap on Strength scores for women.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Wizard was top tier in 4e as well.
Just as a Controller though due role enforcement. The best controller in 4e is a Wizard with the Invoker being a close second.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yesterday I didn't know ACKS II existed. Then I stumbled across a reddit thread, read a couple worked examples of the custom spell research rules, read some MM entries and likes how much non-combat-related stuff was in every entry. Long story short, I'm now $280 poorer and 1900 pages richer. 1400 pages of ACKS II--the PDF draft copies, since the final versions won't come out until next year--and 500 pages of a superhero game called Ascendant, a spiritual successor of sorts to both Marvel Superheroes/FASERIP and to DC Heroes with its logarithmic everything.

Ascendant is also very cool.

 

[deganawida]

I still think the whole thing is about images and tropes.

D&D fans and WOTC agree on what the tropes and images of all the full spellcaster. The Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard get spells at every other level which display what they are able to do. You go from your library of 1st level spells all the way to your list of 9th level spells..

Even for the half casters there is a sort of argument on what the paladin and ranger are supposed to able to do. Maybe not the power level and the level of love. The half casters need better unique spells or uses of them and surveys stated that is what the community wants.

But for the classes without a spell progression, the non casters, the D&D community differs on which tropes they have and is split on them. And WOTC is anxious about defining the class tropes. They've focused on subclass tropes which leaves the classes hollow. And the subclasses don't have enough appearances to pick up the slack. What is a fighter? barbarian? monk? It's all about Champion Battlemaster, Berserker, Wildheart, Four Elements, Open Hand. Rogue is the only standout having both a sneak attack and skill feature progression.

Completely agree. Rather than define what a Fighter is, what it does, and why one would want to play it, they shifted the discussion to subclasses and abilities that are at times at odds with the core class design.

 

[Minigiant]

Completely agree. Rather than define what a Fighter is, what it does, and why one would want to play it, they shifted the discussion to subclasses and abilities that are at times at odds with the core class design.

That's why these topics keep coming up.

There is no fighter.

It's just Champion lovers and Battlemaster lovers arguing with Echo/Eldritch/Psi/Rune Knight fans vibing in the corner with magic.

There is no barbarian.

It's just Bear Totem fans lamenting their lack of choice and eventual nerf with Zealot and Storm fans raging in the corner.

There is no monk

There are just people crying in the corner.

And the rogue fans are hiding in the corner hoping for sneak attack.

Fortunately there are only four corners.

 

[strawbellebelle]

But for the classes without a spell progression, the non casters, the D&D community differs on which tropes they have and is split on them. And WOTC is anxious about defining the class tropes. They've focused on subclass tropes which leaves the classes hollow. And the subclasses don't have enough appearances to pick up the slack. What is a fighter? barbarian? monk? It's all about Champion Battlemaster, Berserker, Wildheart, Four Elements, Open Hand. Rogue is the only standout having both a sneak attack and skill feature progression.

Fighter = The master of direct combat. Simple but effective, with the most attacks and most feats to supplement their talents.

Barbarian = Resilient warriors, who can enter a Rage to further augment their durability and increase their damage output.

Monk = Versatile combatants with unmatched mobility and a variety of offensive and supportive options.

All of these classes have a very simple definition, and often it's the one D&D itself summarizes them with. This isn't difficult, unless the classes just aren't exactly (and solely) what you want them to be..

 

[Minigiant]

Fighter = The master of direct combat. Simple but effective, with the most attacks and most feats to supplement their talents.

Barbarian = Resilient warriors, who can enter a Rage to further augment their durability and increase their damage output.

Monk = Versatile combatants with unmatched mobility and a variety of offensive and supportive options.

All of these classes have a very simple definition, and often it's the one D&D itself summarizes them with. This isn't difficult, unless the classes just aren't exactly (and solely) what you want them to be..

Yeah but those 3 classes are barely these things if at all. Monks have more attacks than Fighters. Rogues are faster than Monks. Nor are they the tropes WOTC tagged them with when designing them.

If the definitions were so simple or the tropes clear, there wouldn't be so many topics about them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And besides, the included rules for sexual slavery are way more objectionable than the Bladedancer.

I'm sure I'll regret that I asked, but: I'm sorry, what?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Also, I don't believe that associating with an unpleasant person makes you unpleasant. I judge people by what they believe and what they do.

This association was a very high ranking position to promote this unpleasant person. It's not like he was just some janitor working in Milo's company earning a pay check, he was ideologically aligned and worked to further this ideology.

And I judge a game by the game and not by what people say about the person who wrote it.

I'm sure it might be a good game. But I am not giving money to people who might funnel it to promote causes I seriously object. Like J. K. Rowling is pretty skilled writer of fantasy books, but I am not giving her my money either.