D&D 5E What is balance to you, and why do you care (or don't)?

[James Gasik]

I don't think I have ever seen a new player voluntarily pick the fighter. Every single person I have introduced wants to do some magic stuff. They want to do cool things, then get told "no, here's a guy with a stick".

It's frankly insulting to them, and denies the rest of us a decent warrior type.

I agree. In fact, anecdotally, at least, in editions past, the new player was usually stuck with being the Cleric in many groups I played in!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think we need to look at this not from the perspective of "I want to turn off my brain and attack" but "new player".

in 3e I would have agreed. however in 5e I find most new players are not heading to fighter.
infact the majority of people who argue for simple fighter fall into 2 groups 1) doesn't play fighters but still want them and 2) older players who have always played fighters as the simple class.
at least in my experience sorcerer warlock are the two class in the PHB that attract the eye of new players

If you managed to talk your buddy into playing an RPG, and they like fantasy but have never played an RPG, they're going to have issues.

but the newer players are growing up with harry potter and wheel of time not conan and ... I just blanked on any fighter somehow...

Some games can be quite daunting- look at PF1. Ability Scores, Race, Alternate Racial Traits, Class, Archetype, Feats, Traits, Skills- even if you play Joe Fighter, you need to carefully select weapons and armor!

and tbh I think pregens are better for that "here are 5 characters, what one do you want to play?"

I don't even think the Fighter, as it exists, is the best "pick up and play" class. Every archetype in D&D needs it's own "starter kit" version.

I don't think Warlock is simple enough to be "my first caster" either, to be honest.

I don't know I have seen 8 year olds pick up warlock and ranger both just fine

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think I have ever seen a new player gravitate towards the fighter. Basically every single person I have introduced wants to do some magic stuff, then get told "no, here's a guy with a stick".

yeah, If my first RPG (not D&D) I had been told to play something like a 5e champion I would not have stuck around long

 

[Maxperson]

Because it consumes design space in a game where the players are so hyper-sensitive to 'niches' that as soon as you have the simple thing, you can't have the interesting thing that fills the same niche. The Fighter isn't allowed to grow too far because the structure needs to conform to the empty vessel that is the Champion.

Guess what? Giving you complicated classes consumes design space in a game where players are "hypersensitive to niches." as well. Why is your niche of "complicated" more important than their niche of "simple?" Especially given that 95%+ of classes/subclasses have been made to cater to you.

 

[Maxperson]

How dumbed down do we need to make it to protect theoretical players who cant be bothered to follow even the most basic resource management? Doing this just poisons the entire class. Why not reserve sidekick classes for those that don't actually want to engage with the game beyond "I hit it"?

Also, the barbarian already fills this role, and the warlock is anything but the simple spell blaster the game needs.

Who are you to tell people how engaged they should be in D&D when they play? Talk about some blatant gatekeeping there. It's also pretty darn selfish of you to want 100% of the classes and subclasses to cater to your desires when you already have 95%+ of them.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Who are you to tell people how engaged they should be in D&D when they play? Talk about some blatant gatekeeping there. It's also pretty darn selfish of you to want 100% of the classes and subclasses to cater to your desires when you already have 95%+ of them.

Your way is gatekeeping anyone not wanting to be a caster to the kiddie pool.

My way gives them a variety of intro classes (4 types of sidekicks) and leaves martials as an option for those who want some depth and effectiveness.

 

[Maxperson]

Because I don't believe the people who barely want to play the game should own any class. Or if we care so much about these theoretical players, where's the no decision "pew pew pew" mage or the braindead heal bot? Why are they locked into one class?

Leaving the gatekeeping there aside, one subclass is not the class. The Battle Master is a complex subclass of Fighter.

 

[Maxperson]

Your way is gatekeeping anyone not wanting to be a caster to the kiddie pool.

That's actually an objectively false statement since there are complex non-casters available. It's also definitionally incorrect. Inclusion by definition cannot be gatekeeping.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's actually an objectively false statement since there are complex non-casters available. It's also definitionally incorrect. Inclusion by definition cannot be gatekeeping.

if inclusion can not be gatekeeping how does that interact with there '4 base simple classe'? it is still giving some inclusion

 

[Maxperson]

no you are mistaking class name for concept... you can't play something that says rogue on the class name.

I'm not. What the Rogue class provides is also a concept. It performs what the "rogues"(Han Solo, Swashbucklers, etc.) you are conflating with the class, cannot provide.

pact of the Tomb warlock. a studios spellcaster that learns magic through learned word, symbold and gestures. Who relies on his 'book of shadows' for much of his power a seeker of ancient knowledge.

1/4 of all warlocks use books (maybe 1/5 is there a tailsman now?) and the only thing you want is to learn magic it can be anyone... you are describing the mechanic of a class or the name of the class... not concepts

False Equivalences are false. Name one that studies to get their spells from that book. Having a book is not at all the same as Wizard magic and doesn't allow them to be wizards. They still universally make a pact with patrons and it's the patron that gives them their powers.

so you think refluffing paladin to fighter is easier then a tomb lock to wizard?

So first, I said nothing about refluffing. Second, yes. It's impossible to refluff a Warlock into a Wizard, since no amount of refluffing the Warlock gets rid of the patron or the patron as the source of the Warlock's power, and no amount of refluffling allows the Warlock to learn spells from the book daily or add new ones to the book from scrolls, other spellbooks, etc.