D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

[ph0rk]

Also subjective opinion.

No, it isn't. it has been demonstrated countless times.

Are you claiming, here, that the champion is not among the poorest damage dealers among fighter archetypes? Or that it is not among the weakest if not the weakest fighter archetypes for out of combat options?

Seeing as I've never used that fallacy here, I've already done it.

You have made no argument at all other than that is is "fine".


If the Champion is fine, then the Banneret is also fine. Also, spellcaster balance is fine, because numbers do not matter.

So; how is the champion fine in a way that is obective and does not requite making an ad populum fallacy or also forcing you to claim that power balance is irrelevant?

 

[Sithlord]

The champion is about as flavorful a subclass as a fifty cent packet of ramen without the dust.

It has weak to no flavor and isn't even particularly good at what it is packaged as being (low maintenance damage output). It could be better at that and still be just as low maintenance, but it is not that.

Really. I can’t get players to stop playing it. They love it. I am in a store where at least 80 people play every thursday. Not counting my home games and the other game days. It is unequivocally the most played subclass of fighter. Hands down. So it is exciting quite a few players.

 

[ph0rk]

Really. I can’t get players to stop playing it. They love it. I am in a store where at least 80 people play every thursday. Not counting my home games and the other game days. It is unequivocally the most played subclass of fighter. Hands down. So it is exciting quite a few players.

This is pretty much ad populum. Lots of people play it, so it must be good.

It is the most simple sublcass, and, as I said - there is nothing wrong with that. However, the most simple subclass should be a bit better at The Thing it does. This is not the case.

Whether or not the people that pick it know this is irrelevant when discussing the fact it is a weak choice for damage output.

 

[Sithlord]

This is pretty much ad populum. Lots of people play it, so it must be good.

Well they can sure as heck play something else that they want. And I don’t think they are playing it because they are bored. Sure as heck not how I want to spend an evening.

 

[ph0rk]

Well they can sure as heck play something else that they want. And I don’t think they are playing it because they are bored. Sure as heck not how I want to spend an evening.

This is just more ad populum - people play it so it must be good.

People play sorcerers, so they must be just as flexible as wizards.

People play fighters, so they must be just as poweful and flexible as casters.

Etcetera.

It very strictly isn't an argument about how they are powerful. It is an attempt to sidestep that argument. People play it, so it must be fine.

 

[Undrave]

The champion is about as flavorful a subclass as a fifty cent packet of ramen without the dust.

It has weak to no flavor and isn't even particularly good at what it is packaged as being (low maintenance damage output). It could be better at that and still be just as low maintenance, but it is not that.

I don't know why they didn't just give it a second fighting style right at level 3? The critical thing is so underwhelming... And so is 'Remarkable Athlete'. It should have just been Reliable Talent but for Athletics and Acrobatics.

 

[ph0rk]

I don't know why they didn't just give it a second fighting style right at level 3? The critical thing is so underwhelming... And so is 'Remarkable Athlete'. It should have just been Reliable Talent but for Athletics and Acrobatics.

Those would have been marked improvements.

I'd have given it free proficiency in athletics or acrobatics, too, and it would still be a bland archetype and relatively weak on the power spectrum.

 

[Sithlord]

This is just more ad populum - people play it so it must be good.

People play sorcerers, so they must be just as flexible as wizards.

People play fighters, so they must be just as poweful and flexible as casters.

Etcetera.

It very strictly isn't an argument about how they are powerful. It is an attempt to sidestep that argument. People play it, so it must be fine.

This ain’t a logic class. It’s artistic aesthetics. It’s good if people like it. It’s like chocolate. This ain’t a mathematical formula that you derive to say it is good. It’s good if millions of people play it. That simple. I could understand maybe otherwise for a small indie company that doesn’t have the budget to advertise their products. But that’s not the case for d&d. Ad populum does not apply. Millions of people think chocolate is good. You are saying they are wrong because of ad populum. Really. Or are they just having badwrongfun or don’t understand the intellectual nuances of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it isn't. it has been demonstrated countless times.

Dude. Anything you label as "bland" is subjective opinion. It literally cannot be anything else. Bland is just what you think of it.

Are you claiming, here, that the champion is not among the poorest damage dealers among fighter archetypes? Or that it is not among the weakest if not the weakest fighter archetypes for out of combat options?

None of that. I'm saying that if the game expects you be at least a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 in order to do well at the game, no subclass is that low. If dealing a bit more damage is that important to you, then YOU don't have have to play a Champion. Crunch the numbers, limit yourself to only those options that deal the top damage, and have fun. Not everyone sees damage as the end all, be all of a PC.

You have made no argument at all other than that is is "fine".

Incorrect. I've also made the claim that 5e is easy enough that the Champion isn't substandard when compared to the GAME. Not other PC classes(and all such comparisons are to a degree subjective), but to the game itself which doesn't expect everyone to be dealing top damage.

So; how is the champion fine in a way that is obective and does not requite making an ad populum fallacy or also forcing you to claim that power balance is irrelevant?

Doubling down on the false accusations of a fallacy that was never made, eh? Not very strong. Especially when you commit a Strawman in the same sentence. I've never said power balance was irrelevant. I said the current differences between the classes is fine. Casters do not dominate like they did in 1e, 2e and 3e.

 

[Maxperson]

This is pretty much ad populum. Lots of people play it, so it must be good.

At least you're finally using it correctly.