D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[GMforPowergamers]

Do you know what selection bias is?

As a teacher I can tell you: you very rarely here it first hand, if you are doing a good job. But if there is a single problem for very few students, believe me, you here about it fast and loud.

So even if 95% of what you read are complains, you can be sure that this does not reflect the reality.

funny thing about confirmation bias (the name I heard that as) is that when you think something is fine you gloss over or ignore complaints and even if 60% of the users doesn't like it you just don't see it

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The Classes are balanced, you demonstrated that with math in this very thread.

no I didn't I showed that the guy that is supposed to do less damage can use some but not all of his stuff to do 80% the damage of the guy who's only thing is 'does damage'

You don't like the fashion of balance, but it exists and it works.

citation needed
it works for you not for everyone

The books explain it and how to use it.

and yet you find people like me here and elsewhere...

3e explained the math too. didn't stop everyone from realzing how broken and unbalanced that was after a few years

 

[Nightfly]

I should like to challenge all of these statements.

You should? Forsooth, good chap! Challenge away!

Compared to 4e, 13A, Dungeon World, or a variety of other modern design games, it's often infuriating to try to assemble any archetype that isn't officially supported (look at the Frankenstein's monster you must assemble if you want to even loosely mimic a Warlord, to say nothing of something like a Spellslinger, Engineer/Machinist, Summoner, Shaman, etc.), and the "contributions" of sub-optimal characters are literally "things absolutely anyone could have done, so you still bring nothing personally to the table."

I think you might be remembering 4e with rose-colored lenses. People freaked out when they learned that the fighter was a "defender" in 4e and that making a damage-based fighter was essentially impossible. And if you wanted to make a fighter with a bow? Well, all the archery stuff belongs to the ranger. If you didn't want to be a ranger... too bad, buddy. Archer warriors in 4e were rangers, and if you wanted to be a remotely effective character of that type, it was ranger or go home.

I personally didn't mind that, because I wasn't married to the name "fighter" when I rolled up an archer martial. But boy, other people sure did. A lot of folks at Paizo made a lot of money just based on the anger that a lot of the fan base had about that kind of thing. Wizards attempted to fix it to some degree with Essentials, which (among other things) made the class roles a bit more flexible, but the damage had been done at that point.

So invoking 4e as an exemplar as "players can play what they want" is really odd to me. The player base voted overwhelmingly with their wallets that 4e failed at doing exactly that. Mind you, I liked 4e, I loved the warlord class, and I adore what I know of 13th Age, so I'm kind of on your side here. But I'm well aware that I'm a minority opinion on this point. Players overall seem to think that 5e does a much better job of allowing you to play what you want than 4e did.

Thus -- attempting to loop back to our original prompt -- yes, 5e is special. It's the most user-friendly edition of D&D ever, and it's not coincidence that the huge renaissance happened under 5e.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

funny thing about confirmation bias (the name I heard that as) is that when you think something is fine you gloss over or ignore complaints and even if 60% of the users doesn't like it you just don't see it

Those are two different biases.

Selection bias is not selectively glossing over some information.
Selection bias is when you don't have a representing sample, because you allow everyone to take part in your survey. Then you will notice, that those who are more bothered have a higher interes to take part.
This is what happened with brexit: a very low participation that was skewed towards leaving the EU because the brexiteers had an easier time mobilizing the dissatisfied people.

 

[Parmandur]

no I didn't I showed that the guy that is supposed to do less damage can use some but not all of his stuff to do 80% the damage of the guy who's only thing is 'does damage'

And there it is: you ran the numbers, and they balanced out. That's the balance of the game. That's all there is to it. Playing the game contrary to the advice of the book so to undermine that balance will, obviously, undermine it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would say the opposite. If it IS a problem for you, then it’s a problem.

exactly... and I and others have said before if I came and other places and found no one else had these issues... it was a me thing, I would just write it off... but I didn't find that. I find many people (to different degrees) having the same issue... and I find people who claim it isn't an issue but then explain how they work around it... um if you have to work around it, why not just get it fixed?

This does not mean the game is broken however.

no but it is more damaged and broken then I want.
2e was more broken in many ways... and in some ways had better balance.
3e-3.5 PF1 was so broken that as far as I am concerned it did not function at all

my experence with 1e and basic is too limited to really judge

It means you may want to invest in a fix that increases your enjoyment.

we have We found that we have our own work arounds... we use MAD with some spells, and we have caster games and non caster games (with most 1/2 and 1/3 casters fitting in both)

but again I can jury rig the game... that doesn't mean Ii don't want it fixed,

Given the popularity of the game, it is unlikely to garner a systemic overhaul of significant proportions. Neither is it probably fruitful to convince people (like me) that they are more happy than we should be.

I get it—-I have had much time on the sidelines and it sucks. My solution was to embrace the sidelines until things changes. AD&D right up to 3e.

And just nothing during 4e! Should have gone back but I digress.

here is the problem... 4e was my go to example... people complained loud and got things chaanged (twice calling 3e out as broken then the others calling 4e borieng) so I will not just 'sit in the side; I will say my peace

There is a lot of debate about the game philosophy and design goals. It might be an interesting academic debate and perfect grist for the mill. But the designers really have one thing in mind: fun. And of course their vision of fun is carried forward if it leads to sales.

and I beleive a better balanced game would be more fun

That said was there any edition that really hit the sweet spot for you?

yes and no... every edition had it's ups and downs... for me the sweet spot would be the merging of 4e with some 2e and a few 5e updates thrown in with modernfluff

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You do want supernatural fighters.

yes

Many people don't want them.

yup and my comprmise postion for my 2024 wishlist is to split the fighter in 3... the battle master subclass breaks off into warlord/warblade/animeswordsguy the champion breaks off as the basic no frills class and the eldritch knight breaks off as a swordmage/magus/gish having 3 dedicated classes means that features do not need to be force to fit all three.

Although I think today less people would mind fighters having a few supernatural powers at higher levels than 10 years ago. But I am just guessing without proof.

my 'perfect' world would have low (1st-5th) level fighters be supernatural free IF you choose to just not take the supernatural options... but starting around 6th level thing would go beyond normal... no 11th level fighter would loose in a sport to a modern day olympion in my perfect game.

Here is something I wish they retained from 4e: paragon paths. This would be an easy way to add a supernatural layer over a mundane fighter.
Or just add a few abilities to chose from at higher levels baked in the base class, some of which might be clearly extraordinary.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And there it is: you ran the numbers, and they balanced out. That's the balance of the game. That's all there is to it. Playing the game contrary to the advice of the book so to undermine that balance will, obviously, undermine it.

one character with a combat focused everything and another with some resources going to combat being only slightly diffrent... whent he combat focus CAN'T do any other thing the other one can is not balance at all

either guy combat spells or give fighters non combat stuff

 

[UngeheuerLich]

3e explained the math too. didn't stop everyone from realzing how broken and unbalanced that was after a few years

Actually the core of 3e was not that imbalanced. A few spells here or there became unbalanced because 3.0 dropped caster restrictions.

It was 3.5 and splat books that heavily unbalanced 3e and it was a lack of explanation of the math and the intend behind it what had it break down.

There were a few misconceptions that were later sold as features instead of fixing the bugs:

1. Iterative attacks:
If you accept that tge fighter hits with their first attacks nearly automatically, then secondary and tertary attacks are not loughably useless.

2. Cross class skills:
If you keep to the baseline (DC 10 to 25) and use take 10 and take 20 as explained by the rules, characters are actually very competent with very low investment in skills.

3. Magic items like candy
If you accept point 1 and point 2, magic items are not as necessary as they turned out to be. You don't need AC 30, if you accept that you are hit by fighter's first attacks.

Why did it not work out that way?

1. Poison: if you are hit, you might be dead very soon. Lack of easy healing.

2. Some classes had the need to maxize skills and class skills could be pumped sonhigh, that investing in cross class skills felt like a waste.

3. Poison and spells that disable you instead of just damageing you. You could not afford to be hit. Also, due to the removal of interrupting spells, ll your had were too low saving throws.

 

[MichaelSomething]

You know, there more to D&D then balance.

For example, many people value immersion and will accept horrible balance as long as they can become their character.

Many also want that D&D feeling. WOTC has done great in that regard since 5E is full of natural language that describes a game style a good deal of people wouldn't like but play D&D anyway because of branding and vague writing.

And don't forget DM empowerment! WOTC knows many never bother reading the books and/or ignore the rules and just improv their way through and 5E is great for that!