D&D (2024) Do you see Fighter players at your own table?

[Yaarel]

When we want to play martial characters we do players can only be fighters rogue monk ranger barbarian paliden. Sometimes we include artificer. Normally we don’t allow the eldritch knight or arcane trickster but sometimes we have.
We then just don’t use enemies that cast higher then 5th level spells and don’t put creatures immune to no magic damage in

I have been told the bard from middle earth book is spelless and still work but we have not tried it

In AIM, the Martial classes are good. But otherwise, the classes are horribly unbalanced. It removes spells without supplying any kind of game balance compensation.

Instead if playing a "low magic" setting, make the part casters, Paladin, Ranger, and Eldritch Knight and Trickster Rogue, function as if the "cleric", "wizard", and "druid".

 

[HammerMan]

In AIM, the classes are horribly unbalanced. It removes spells without supplying any kind of game balance compensation.

Except they ARE balanced from what I have seen. Literally take a ranger and a bard take away there spells and give them a minor exploration thing and they are on par with a fighter.

Edit: in case of there bard what would you feel they lack compaired to fighter and rouge?

 

[Yaarel]

Except they ARE balanced from what I have seen. Literally take a ranger and a bard take away there spells and give them a minor exploration thing and they are on par with a fighter.

Edit: in case of there bard what would you feel they lack compaired to fighter and rouge?

I am familiar with the AIM game. The flavor is extraordinary. The class balance is horrible.

Remember, the 5e Bard is a full caster. One cannot remove Bard spells without gutting the class.

 

[HammerMan]

I am familiar with the AIM game. The flavor is extraordinary. The class balance is horrible.

What would you change about their bard? What about there ranger is off?

If you are afraid of speaking badly I will starts. They have a dumb barbarian subclass that lets you where heavy armor then lets you add dex.
The healing in the scholar make little sense mechanically or narratively.

 

[Yaarel]

What would you change about their bard? What about there ranger is off?

If you are afraid of speaking badly I will starts. They have a dumb barbarian subclass that lets you where heavy armor then lets you add dex.
The healing in the scholar make little sense mechanically or narratively.

AIM is a setting that "privileges" certain classes and goes out of its way to impair the other classes. For the AIM setting, I would ban all of its unprivileged classes, so players dont pick trap options. Then again, some players dont care about class balance. I would need to refresh my memory to make specific recommendations. Heh, but I remember my appallment.

 

[HammerMan]

AIM is a setting that "privileges" certain classes and goes out of its way to impair the other classes. For the AIM setting, I would ban all of its unprivileged classes, so players dont pick trap options. Then again, some players dont care about class balance. I would need to refresh my memory to make specific recommendations. Heh, but I remember my appallment.

I’m very shocked. I have never heard a complaint about useing the AiM book as just those classes being unbalanced.

 

[Yaarel]

I’m very shocked. I have never heard a complaint about useing the AiM book as just those classes being unbalanced.

If I remember correctly, the Martial options, including Ranger were balanced with each other. I feel bad about critiquing AIM because its art and flavor are extraordinarily beautiful. At the same time, I care about gaming balance.

Free League is coming out with a new Lord of the Rings setting for 5e. I havent seen it yet.

 

[HammerMan]

If I remember correctly, the Martial options, including Ranger were balanced with each other. I feel bad about critiquing AIM because its art and flavor is extraordinarily beautiful. At the same time, I care about gaming balance.

Free League is coming out with a new Lord of the Rings setting for 5e. I havent seen it yet.

My understanding was that the book was balanced internal as long as you didn’t have outside class and subclasses. This intrigues me

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I think the part that confuses most people is that Gandalf is described as a wizard. Others refer to him as a wizard, he refers to himself as a wizard, and he consults with other wizards about wizardly things. In the world of Middle Earth, Gandalf is a wizard.

But in the world of D&D, classes are a lot more malleable and Gandalf could be a wizard, or a paladin, or a warlock, depending on other assumptions you make and which characteristics you want to emphasize.

And you can build him as a paladin and call him a wizard. It is not like my character goes around calling herself a rogue scout! In fact, if anything she would call herself a Ranger!

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

In AIM, the Martial classes are good. But otherwise, the classes are horribly unbalanced. It removes spells without supplying any kind of game balance compensation.

Interesting, I’ve heard otherwise, but haven’t tried it out. How were they unbalanced in play?