D&D 5E Are Per Rest Resources a Hindrance?

[UngeheuerLich]

So every edition has been perfect and we shouldn't discuss any issues we have with them because a lot of people don't 'fuss'.

Pack it up, Enworld.

Interesting... Or maybe it is that neither approach is perfect and maybe something in between or something totally different would be better.

So I think it is a reasonable stance to say, that I prefer 5e ressource management over 4e in ressource management but that I can see that a combination of both would probably be my favourite (probably, because without actually playing it, there is no way to tell...)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you don't like fighters, don't play one. There are plenty of alternatives. Leave the "boring" options to people that enjoy playing them, or simply want to spend time with friends and family without having to worry about complexity.

I can't agree more. There should be a mix of classes that appeal to different needs. What 6e needs to make sure that the assumptions for assymetrical balance are more in line with how the game is actually played, or even better, if they all scale more similarly with different rest schedules.

The champion fighter could easily have ressources similar to expertise dice, but instead of fueling maneuvers, you can just spend them to turn a hit into a critical hit (or just deal double weapon damage if you fear that a real critcal is too powerful).

 

[James Gasik]

So we've devolved back to "fighters suck because I find them boring?" Personally I like playing simple fighters sometimes. Champion fighter has been great for my sister who joined our family game so she could spend more time with us and her sons. I have a player in my other game that probably should be playing a champion fighter because he never takes advantage of the options other subclasses offer anyway.

If you don't like fighters, don't play one. There are plenty of alternatives. Leave the "boring" options to people that enjoy playing them, or simply want to spend time with friends and family without having to worry about complexity.

So if someone doesn't care for the Fighter's paradigm, they can't say so because you like it? How does this discussion affect you, exactly?

 

[Mort]

So if someone doesn't care for the Fighter's paradigm, they can't say so because you like it? How does this discussion affect you, exactly?

Constructive comments on problems with the paradigm and/or suggestions on improving it - GREAT.

Snarky comments that just insult those that do like the paradigm? Not so great.

 

[Minigiant]

I can't agree more. There should be a mix of classes that appeal to different needs. What 6e needs to make sure that the assumptions for assymetrical balance are more in line with how the game is actually played, or even better, if they all scale more similarly with different rest schedules.

The champion fighter could easily have ressources similar to expertise dice, but instead of fueling maneuvers, you can just spend them to turn a hit into a critical hit (or just deal double weapon damage if you fear that a real critcal is too powerful).

I said it before and I'll say it again. Add the long rest warriors and rogues and at-will mages and priests.

Then pick the classes that match your group's playstyle and ban the rest.

Time to face facts: You can't do everything with subclasses, prestige classes, kits, and feats.

If there is one thing hindering D&D, it's "I don't like how this looks even though it fixes the problem so let's not do it. I want itto be this way even though it only works at a small portion of tables unchanged."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I said it before and I'll say it again. Add the long rest warriors and rogues and at-will mages and priests.

Then pick the classes that match your group's playstyle and ban the rest.

Time to face facts: You can't do everything with subclasses, prestige classes, kits, and feats.

If there is one thing hindering D&D, it's "I don't like how this looks even though it fixes the problem so let's not do it. I want itto be this way even though it only works at a small portion of tables unchanged."

I think it can be different and I already do it differently: make classes a bit more similar in ressource management and then just use the rest schedule that fits your group best. That is what they found out in the dndnext playtest but did not put in the phb but instead in the dmg as an option which does not have the same authority.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There's a place for some really simple classes that only do one thing, but do it really well. That gives a place for new players, for casual players who don't care to learn anything more complex, and for those players who can attend only rarely and want to just drop in to the action. So having the Champion subclass for the Fighter is a good thing (though as it stands it's underpowered). Ideally, there should be equivalently simple options for all four of the major roles (The Fighter and Rogue are already covered, but we could do with a really simple Arcane caster and a really simple Divine caster. Perhaps also a really simple "Druid", too.)

Again, I have never seen a new player happy to be forced to play the 'simple' class. The whole idea of giving them an 'uncomplicated toy' to play with because we assume they're too dumb to operate Rage is condescending.

But by the same token, those really simple options shouldn't be the end point for any of the options - we need crunchier and more varied versions of the Fighter and the Rogue, too. (And that shouldn't require them to get onto the spellcasting bandwagon, either. The Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are fine, but they're not the solution in and of themselves.)

The main problem with Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster comes from the core of the subclass system where a subclass is there just to fulfil a single concept but 'Magic Warrior' and 'Magic Rogue' are broader concepts than what they're trying to provide.

The desperate need to simplify everything get in the way far too often. If they were running out more subclasses or actually putting the work in to produce new classes, that'd be different, but everything basically has to be locked to the oversimplified core class chassis and rarely published.

 

[James Gasik]

Constructive comments on problems with the paradigm and/or suggestions on improving it - GREAT.

Snarky comments that just insult those that do like the paradigm? Not so great.

Well yeah, I wasn't saying we shouldn't be civil about it. But if someone says "I find the Fighter paradigm unsatisfying" or even call it "boring" (which is subjective), it's not like it's hurting the Fighter's feelings to say so.

Or that anything we say on this forum will somehow affect D&D game design moving forward. Sales numbers and (presumably) surveys will do that.

 

[Oofta]

I can't agree more. There should be a mix of classes that appeal to different needs. What 6e needs to make sure that the assumptions for assymetrical balance are more in line with how the game is actually played, or even better, if they all scale more similarly with different rest schedules.

The champion fighter could easily have ressources similar to expertise dice, but instead of fueling maneuvers, you can just spend them to turn a hit into a critical hit (or just deal double weapon damage if you fear that a real critcal is too powerful).

Remember that player that I said should be playing a champion fighter? He plays a battle master. I think he's used his superiority dice 2-3 times. They're level 15 now.

That's not to say he's a bad player, I enjoy having him at the table. But he just doesn't remember to use them. Heck, I remind him now and then to use his action surge.

Some people just need simple.

 

[Oofta]

So if someone doesn't care for the Fighter's paradigm, they can't say so because you like it? How does this discussion affect you, exactly?

So how does my stating that the fighter works well for me and others affect you?