D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[DND_Reborn]

It's seen as not worth the headache that they'd get from that part of the fanbase to fix what should have been addressed with 3e. Especially considering that in my opinion; some of the D&D devs are part of the fanbase that like magic users just how they are, thank you very much...

First, good review!

Second, the issue is the escalation principle of design. Only with a complete rework can new levels be established, otherwise we see it with each new release, things becoming more powerful, bigger, crazier, etc. Our group banned Tasha's for this reason and it is why I mark it as the beginning of the end for 5E. It might be a long decline, but it will happen and at some point 6E or whatever follows will rise to take its place.

 

[Jaeger]

I would also like to caution trying against assuming that everything that that 4e did was unpopular with D&D players. Like I've said before, for instance, I was not a fan of 4e in the slightest (for multiple reasons), but I cheer on what 4e did with fighters. I suspect that I'm not the only one who hard passed on 4e that has a more nuanced view of 4e.

That's not the point I was making.

If I was a betting man, I'd wager you probably represent a majority of people who were turned off by 4e when they gave it a try.

It certainly isn't any one mechanic, enough 4e got re-fluffed/translated into 5e that most can see direct connections.

Rather it is the game taken a whole that got a lot of players to go: "Wait, what!?..."

My personal shot-in-the-dark/hot-take; is that it just had one too many conceptual changes all at once... Along with a healthy does of a series of WotC own-goals on an epic level when they rolled out the thing.

YMMV...

Second, the issue is the escalation principle of design. Only with a complete rework can new levels be established, otherwise we see it with each new release, things becoming more powerful, bigger, crazier, etc. Our group banned Tasha's for this reason and it is why I mark it as the beginning of the end for 5E. It might be a long decline, but it will happen and at some point 6E or whatever follows will rise to take its place.

And that is the interesting thing... both 3e and 5e were complete re-works - Yet they both did absolutely nothing about the underlying issues of LFQW.

Magic users be popular...

 

[Maxperson]

The vast majority of monsters have no resistance or immunity to nonmagical weapons. So the simplest solution to a campaign with no magic weapons is to not use monsters that are immune to mundane weapons. According to my filtering DndBeyond monsters only about 2% of monsters are immune, that number grows to a little over 10% if you include resistant.

Fighters dish out so much single target damage, especially with multiple Action Surges, that a group of 4 can take down a few resistant creatures. You don't even need to avoid them. Just don't use a ton at once. It's really only the immune creatures that need to be avoided.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure. Although I can see why that happens, since rangers are very much a druid/fighter mixture, at least in theme.

The funny thing is the ranger and druid themes are on opposite sides.

The Ranger's default is Pro-Civilization. The Druid default is Pro-Nature.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The Ranger's default is Pro-Civilization. The Druid default is Pro-Nature.

Really? I always saw them as Pro-Nature as well... Not Anti-Civilization, though, but certainly not Pro.

 

[Minigiant]

My personal shot-in-the-dark/hot-take; is that it just had one too many conceptual changes all at once... Along with a healthy does of a series of WotC own-goals on an epic level when they rolled out the thing.

As much as I didn't like Essentials, if 4e Essentials was the first form of 4th edition with its non-uniform power structure... there woulda be a LOT less backlash.

5e is mostly long form 4e with a different layout, bounded accuracy, and the crazy magic shoved back into spells/prayers.

 

[Minigiant]

Really? I always saw them as Pro-Nature as well... Not Anti-Civilization, though, but certainly not Pro.

The ranger's default fluff it fights the evils lurking in the wild to protect civilization. Rangers know most of sapient creatures in the wild is dangerous as heck.

99.999999999999999% of D&D fans miss that. It's right in the flavor text no one reads.

 

[Faolyn]

The funny thing is the ranger and druid themes are on opposite sides.

The Ranger's default is Pro-Civilization. The Druid default is Pro-Nature.

I'm sort of between you and DND_Reborn here. To me, they seem to keep things safe for civilization while at the same time being very much pro-nature.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The ranger's default fluff it fights the evils lurking in the wild to protect civilization. Rangers know most of sapient creatures in the wild is dangerous as heck.

99.999999999999999% of D&D fans miss that. It's right in the flavor text no one reads.

Well, I know it's there in 5E... but not in 1E or 2E that I can recall (I actually just re-read the flavor text before posting prior).

Rangers have always had a love of the wilderness and respect for its power, trying to keep evil/wicked humanoids and even the "good folk" from over cutting lumber, encroaching on wildlife, over hunting, etc. They prefer seclusion and the outdoors to civilization, and try to educate civilized folk of the errors of their ways when they act in a way harmful to nature.

That is how pretty much every ranger I've ever seen, in any edition of D&D, played. YMMV of course.

EDIT: Again, just to emphasize, they are not against civilization, and want it to exist in harmony with nature, as most natural things do.

 

[Mort]

And that is the interesting thing... both 3e and 5e were complete re-works - Yet they both did absolutely nothing about the underlying issues of LFQW.

Magic users be popular...

Interesting take, but I disagree. Both addressed the issue - but in opposite directions.

3e - introduced a good mechanism to keep the classes in more parity, but then dropped the ball on it - feats.

Fighters got lots of feats in 3e (well more than anyone else) and if the feats escalated like spells did then fighters COULD have kept up to the wizards (especially if they had really gone with fighter specific feats). But WoTC decided not to do that - the "high level" feats were a complete joke compared to high level spells! Not until the very end of the line (PHB 2 I think) did "official" high level feats start appearing that were actually anything resembling high level.

Casters, on the other hand, not only got great combat AND utility spells, they could easily make magic items - so they could EASILY have all the utility they needed without sacrificing combat power. SO 3e didn't just "not address the LFQW issue" It basically doubled down on it!

5e, on the other hand, actually does address the issue A LOT. First, concentration, this single mechanic is probably the biggest hamper to casters in any edition. No more invisible, flying, spell hurling wizards. Next, there has been a big clamp down on summoning spells, they exist but they are a shadow of what they were in prior editions. After that, charm spells are also a shadow of what they were in prior editions. Durations are shorter (mostly), the consequences are bigger (generally an automatically angry target) and concentration limits amounts severely. Finally, Item crafting is back to DM controlled and not the automatic item creation factory of 3e. So wizards can't just automatically have a scroll, potion or wand as needed for every occasion. In combat, the gap is (IMO) mostly closed, at least in terms of effectiveness and power level. The casters still dramatically out option the martials (especially fighters) in the other 2 tiers, and I'd love to see some improvement. But I just can't see saying no progress has been made or issues addressed.