Unpopular opinions go here

[Hussar]

So your point was you want a new flavored class instead of forcing a fighter flavor change? I totally agree with that.

No, my point was that we cannot have a fighter flavor change because it will never, ever get past the gate keepers. Doesn't matter if it's something they would never use or not. Fighters MUST BE one thing and one thing only and must never, ever be allowed to be anything other than that one thing. Which you have now twice so eloquently illustrated.

Which is generally one of the larger problems with 5e - the fact that any change must run the gauntlet and so, nothing will ever be allowed to change. Good grief, in ten years we got one new class. You think they're going to be allowed to create a new "mythic fighter" class for D&D? Not a chance. There's just no way that it will ever get past those who refuse to allow anything in the game that isn't to their "taste". The One D&D playtest has proven that. Any deviation from the baseline is automatically rejected. Doesn't matter that it might be something that has zero impact on a given game table. Doesn't matter. D&D MUST REMAIN PURE!!!

It's really rather depressing. For all the complaints about how WotC won't innovate or won't do stuff to appeal to this or that idea, the second WotC actually does try to do anything new, they get crucified for it. Good grief, having bright colors on the cover of a module was a major issue for months and sign of how WotC hates D&D and has abandoned gamers.

 

[Hussar]

You can give "on the fly" and "improvisational" whatever nonsensically opposite definitions makes you feel like you've won an argument. I have repeatedly explained what I meant and I am pretty tired of being "corrected."

All this stemmed from one explicit truth: it takes more time and effort to use a published adventure for a successful game than to not do so FOR ME.

Swimming upthread a bit because this stuck out in my brain.

For me, the one explicit truth: It takes more time and effort to use published settings for a successful game than not to do so FOR ME. Give me adventures all day long. I can use those. Published setting books with no actual adventure material in it like SCAG or FRCS? Yeah, total non-starter for me. Heck, it was 5e's adventure paths that actually got me into Forgotten Realms. Before that, if it had an FR tag on the cover, other than a couple of rare buys, it didn't even exist AFAIC. Same goes for all those 2e boxed settings. Never bought them. Never really even looked at them other than to glance through, feel my eyes glaze over and put them back on the shelf.

That's my unpopular opinion.

 

[AnotherGuy]

So your point was you want a new flavored class instead of forcing a fighter flavor change? I totally agree with that.

I'm not sure a new flavoured class would be the best way to deal with something like this.

Since it is a core decision whether you'd like mundanes to become mythic my thinking would be to have dials within the game.
Similarly low-magic (no cantrips, 1 attunement...etc, no spell levels beyond x level), standard magic and high-magic campaigns.

So for dials
(a) Mundane Dial - Up until x level mundanes do not acquire class features but more feats instead, same with spellcasters - they do not have access to the higher-level spells (perhaps they can get around this with cost or requiring multiple casters ...etc)

(b) Mythic Dial - Past x level, class features reflect the supernatural prowess of the character. No longer considered mundane.

OR

Your Feats could have mundane and mythic versions baked right into the system from the start and depending on which mode of play you were in, it would determine whether you'd use the mundane or mythic section of the feat.


Then when it came to Encounter Building you'd have an adjustment (and it could be cumulative) depending on what mode of play the table had decided on:
Mundane +0
Mythic +3 per Tier
Low-Magic +0
Standard +1 per Tier
High-Magic +2 per Tier
...etc

 

[Reynard]

Worrying about the accuracy of some small, unimportant detail in a game because you happen to have a degree of expertise in a related subject is a quirk, but fine. Making sure everyone at the table (and on the forum) knows about it and being exasperated that they don't care as much as you do is not only rude, it's why gamers have a reputation as pedantic nerds. Don't do that.

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure a new flavoured class would be the best way to deal with something like this.

Since it is a core decision whether you'd like mundanes to become mythic my thinking would be to have dials within the game.
Similarly low-magic (no cantrips, 1 attunement...etc, no spell levels beyond x level), standard magic and high-magic campaigns.

So for dials
(a) Mundane Dial - Up until x level mundanes do not acquire class features but more feats instead, same with spellcasters - they do not have access to the higher-level spells (perhaps they can get around this with cost or requiring multiple casters ...etc)

(b) Mythic Dial - Past x level, class features reflect the supernatural prowess of the character. No longer considered mundane.

OR

You Feats could have mundane and mythic baked right into the system from the start and depending on which mode of play you were in, it would determine whether you'd use the mundane or mythic section of the feat.


Then when it came to Encounter Building you'd have an adjustment (and it could be cumulative) depending on what mode of play the table had decided on:
Mundane +0
Mythic +1 per Tier
Low-Magic +0
Standard +1 per Tier
High-Magic +2 per Tier
...etc

That was similar to the route that Paizo took with Pathfinder v1. You could essentially be mythic from 1st level and mythic power tracked separately. Having run their mythic AP from start to finish, it has some things to recommend it but it was, ultimately, very complex to run because the PCs could do SO MUCH.

 

[AnotherGuy]

That was similar to the route that Paizo took with Pathfinder v1. You could essentially be mythic from 1st level and mythic power tracked separately. Having run their mythic AP from start to finish, it has some things to recommend it but it was, ultimately, very complex to run because the PCs could do SO MUCH.

That makes sense. It would be like running epic from 1st level in a way which would require a very capable DM to run adventures for a mythical group of characters.

 

[MGibster]

Here's an unpopular opinion: Maybe if D&D isn't what you want you should play some other game instead of trying to change D&D?

 

[Maxperson]

No, my point was that we cannot have a fighter flavor change because it will never, ever get past the gate keepers. Doesn't matter if it's something they would never use or not. Fighters MUST BE one thing and one thing only and must never, ever be allowed to be anything other than that one thing. Which you have now twice so eloquently illustrated.

Why do you need to take a flavor away from people? Why not just ask for a new flavor? I want a psion. I'm not asking for bards to be taken away from people, even though I dislike the class, especially in the 5e incarnation. I could be arguing to turn bards into psions, which would probably make @Snarf Zagyg happy, but I'm not.

Which is generally one of the larger problems with 5e - the fact that any change must run the gauntlet and so, nothing will ever be allowed to change. Good grief, in ten years we got one new class. You think they're going to be allowed to create a new "mythic fighter" class for D&D? Not a chance. There's just no way that it will ever get past those who refuse to allow anything in the game that isn't to their "taste".

Um, I literally said that you can add a new flavor which would not be to my taste and it was liked by at least one other from my side of things.

The One D&D playtest has proven that. Any deviation from the baseline is automatically rejected. Doesn't matter that it might be something that has zero impact on a given game table. Doesn't matter. D&D MUST REMAIN PURE!!!

Pure...........................or you can just make it impure with a new flavor.

It's really rather depressing. For all the complaints about how WotC won't innovate or won't do stuff to appeal to this or that idea, the second WotC actually does try to do anything new, they get crucified for it. Good grief, having bright colors on the cover of a module was a major issue for months and sign of how WotC hates D&D and has abandoned gamers.

So again, why must innovation come at the expense of something currently existing?

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure a new flavoured class would be the best way to deal with something like this.

Since it is a core decision whether you'd like mundanes to become mythic my thinking would be to have dials within the game.
Similarly low-magic (no cantrips, 1 attunement...etc, no spell levels beyond x level), standard magic and high-magic campaigns.

So for dials
(a) Mundane Dial - Up until x level mundanes do not acquire class features but more feats instead, same with spellcasters - they do not have access to the higher-level spells (perhaps they can get around this with cost or requiring multiple casters ...etc)

(b) Mythic Dial - Past x level, class features reflect the supernatural prowess of the character. No longer considered mundane.

OR

Your Feats could have mundane and mythic versions baked right into the system from the start and depending on which mode of play you were in, it would determine whether you'd use the mundane or mythic section of the feat.


Then when it came to Encounter Building you'd have an adjustment (and it could be cumulative) depending on what mode of play the table had decided on:
Mundane +0
Mythic +3 per Tier
Low-Magic +0
Standard +1 per Tier
High-Magic +2 per Tier
...etc

They could stick those dials in the DMG as an optional rule.

 

[Reynard]

Here's an unpopular opinion: Maybe if D&D isn't what you want you should play some other game instead of trying to change D&D?

Are you suggesting that D&D should never change? And if so, which one?