One edition fits all is an unrealistic goal, however
Doesn't let it off the hook.
Endorsing dnd4vr's opinion that fighters should have a better attack bonus with weapons contradicts someone else's opinion that these are two low level characters in the infancy of their experience who are both trained in using weapons. …
Seriously, of anyone remotely familiar with the idea that wizards spend their training reading books and practicing spells, and fighter training with weapons, who's really going to think they should have equal skill with weapons?
It certainly doesn't makes sense that wizards cannot attack with spells as well as fighter.
You'd expect a wizard to attack better with spells than a fighter would, with spells. And, at first level, he does, quite unequivocally. So no worries on that point.
I did not. I also playtested. Red Box Basic Set initiate, myself. Then every edition after.
Then you're totally in the same club with dnd4vr & the rest of us! D&D is, like, your game, you get to feel proprietary about it and demand it conform to what you want!
is for everyone, but it doesn't owe you anything. You're mistaking the claim as a guarantee of happiness when it decidedly is not.
Oh, that D&D 5e owes it's very existence to the long-time fans who made it not only possible, but necessary is absolutely no guarantee that debt will be in any way honored.
Sure, right after you brush the straw off -- no one made this argument. You claimed 5e was failing as a big tent game because people, like dnd4vr were discontented. I pointed out that the size of the tent is, indeed, very big. You now claim that addressing your claim of lack of popularity with evidence of popularity is an appeal to popularity?
I never said a thing about it needing to be popular to meet the 'Big Tent' goal, rather, it needed to be inclusive (inclusivity can be very unpopular, indeed, with a majority or plurality).
You dismissed dnd4vr's complaint because the game wasn't for him. But it was. It's for all of us - and
each of us.
One voice matters.
If it's not a big difference, why the big complaint it's missing?
It seems like a small complaint, to me.
No, the fighter is given edges in many other areas of the combat engine
Oh, I'm aware of how it all shakes out. The fighter gets some high sustained DPR, a 1/short rest spike, it all approximately balances out in theory once you get to that 6-8 encounter day, and it keeps BA intact.
But, it is kinda funny that it shaved off that one little difference in favor of the fighter that had otherwise endured through all editions. It's interesting how these things happen. I didn't particularly notice it until it was pointed out.
But, yeah, it's a
small complaint, if it's a complaint at all. The fighter, best at fighting, is prettymuch exactly as good as everyone else at hitting his target.
No one can in 5e, so that's not a fighter specific complaint. Pick a goalpost, Tony.
Stand up to a large number of much-lower level opponents? No, not if you stand there for a few rounds. But an AE can erase them before their plinking starts to add up.
I mean, it is a major change in 5e, related to BA, that numbers tell so heavily that even the least of foes, in large enough numbers are not just a threat, but a rapidly overwhelming one. The key to beating those odds is taking out large numbers of them quickly, and unlike full casters, the fighter doesn't have the tools to do that in 5e, but, ironically did, in 4e, 3.x/PF, and even 1e. That he was also nigh-invulnerable to those same least foes in 1e (assuming a bit of magic armor, anyway), 3.x/PF (unless they were re-cast as swarms), or 4e (unless re-cast as minions or swarms), notwithstanding.