L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Labeling a post "The Final Word," is the internet equivalent of putting a "Kick Me" sign on your own back.
By the laws of the internet, even if you want to agree with the OP, you are duty-bound to disagree.
I disagree.Labeling a post "The Final Word," is the internet equivalent of putting a "Kick Me" sign on your own back.
By the laws of the internet, even if you want to agree with the OP, you are duty-bound to disagree.
I disagree.
(fnord)Is that the final word?
By the laws of the internet, even if you want to agree with the OP, you are duty-bound to disagree.
Yes, I would disagree. The Paladin is not just an awful class, it is the worst class, the class that other awful classes can look at and go, "Hey, at least we aren't that class."
Not how I recall it, at all. The fretting was over /attracting/ new players, not retaining them (which, IMX, 4e did startlingly well compared to every other edition I've ever run for new players), and, of course, moving books...I don't agree with this.
Mearls wrote a lot during the 5e design period about 4e's inability to retain new players: that lots of new players tried it, and had some fun with it, but didn't stick with it.
Organized play used pregens, and when I'd run at cons I would, likewise. Maybe that's why I saw 0 issues with 'build complexity.' Or maybe it was that the old off-line CB was /so/ easy to get your digital mitts on (even once they went to on-line whole tables, even two tables at a time, would share one account).He attributed this to various things, but the two I remember are (i) marketing complexity (the "wall of books" thing), and (ii) PC build complexituy (the number of choices needed to build a starting fighter character).
IDK, that sound suspiciously like the "MMO" or 'board game like' play that's become downright pejorative. But, yes, it /is/ hard to design a balanced game that's both easy to get into, and has great depth for the experienced player, and, no, it seems like 5e hasn't quite done it - it's been too busy threading a different needle: the delicate act of acceptability to hard-core fans vs appeal to new (casual/mainstream) fans.I speculate that one of those things is a chance to make "good" play decisions. In MtG this means building a good deck, or playing a clever combo. A designer (I am assuming) wants to build these possibilities into the game. And I think it's hard to build a common framework that both provides those sorts of possibilities to a new player, while at the same time immunises the system against exploitation of those possibilities by an experienced player.
I'd say it'd be fair to be surprised that there aren't many more. Perhaps most of them are still playing PF?But I'm not surprised that there are some experienced players, like the OP, who are having the sorts of problems the OP reports.
And if DPR were King, the fighter would be King, or at least still Lord @9th or Baronet or something...DPR is important. For martial classes without spells, it's their single largest contribution. But that doesn't mean DPR is king. "DPR is king" would mean that only measurements of DPR would count towards measuring the effectiveness of a class.
That's pretty fair, really. In 2nd, the fighter got a big boost in damage if they (ab)used specialization correctly, while some spells got damage caps, and each edition has loosened the limitations on casters (more spells, at-will spells, concentration check to avoid interruption, removing interruption entirely, easier handling of components, etc, etc... by 4e there were virtually no meaningful limitations on casting, ranged/area spells provoked just like ranged attacks was the main one - in 5e, that's gone - and don't start on 'Concentration' so some spells have a duration of 'concentration,' just like some 1e spells did, and much like 4e 'sustain' spells but without an action required to do so, just, if they'd be broken in 5e, you get a roll to keep 'em going, anyway).It has that aspect as well, but I am going back to 1st edition, where the Magic User easily out-damaged all other classes (and out crowd-controlled most of them) in exchange for being extremely squishy and resource limited.
The wizard (which these days includes sorcerer and warlock) still out-damages other classes, but the margin is narrower, in exchange for not dying if a goblin sneezes on them.
The wizard has been both those, and a major damage-dealer, and pretty near whatever else it wanted, through much of D&D's history. 4e tried to constrain the wizard to 'controller,' but even that was a muddy, double-dipped role that included area blasting, battlefield control (walls, zones &c), and direct 'hard' control - /and/ free access to the utility kit of Rituals.I always thought of the wizard more as a battlefield controller and utility kit rather than damage dealer.
AC, hps, & DPR are all part of the same race-to-0-hps of simplistic combat analysis. And, yes, DPR is the biggest baddest variable in that calculation (well, really attacks/round is). That doesn't make it King, the local petty robber-Baron, perhaps, whom the actual King (magic) can dispatch at a moment's notice. ;PWhat I was replying to was all those people who are dismissive of the increase to AC from dual wielder or using a shield. You know, that "other aspect" of a fighter. But saying "your AC will be lower" is met with "that doesn't matter" which then leads me to conclude that "DPR is King" but then I get "DPR IS NOT KING" which then means that AC does matter, but of course it doesn't only DPR matters but DPR is not king ...
What? Like Combat Expertise?That being said, building for AC is certainly feasible. If there was a feat that gave you +5 AC for -5 to hit, I would certainly also point out that feat as being problematic.