D&D (2024) Fighter (Playtest 7)

[Remathilis]

The game isn't being designed any more or less "by commitee" than any prior version of the game. It is being designed using big data focused on user desires, which is a sound approach to producing a design that works for users.

The problem is that the game community doesn't want to let go of its broken or abusable options, despite some things needing reigning in for the health of the game. So far, the only two times I've seen designers fight back against the communities' desires are on Wild Shape Temp HP and on Twin Spell. And you know what? I don't trust them to hold the line on that, let alone fix something like Shield or Simulacrum.

Popularity is important, but WotC needs to remember that what's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

 

[Parmandur]

The problem is that the game community doesn't want to let go of its broken or abusable options, despite some things needing reigning in for the health of the game. So far, the only two times I've seen designers fight back against the communities' desires are on Wild Shape Temp HP and on Twin Spell. And you know what? I don't trust them to hold the line on that, let alone fix something like Shield or Simulacrum.

Popularity is important, but WotC needs to remember that what's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

But for selling to the popular market, what is popular is right.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

But for selling to the popular market, what is popular is right.

You're not wrong, but the flaw to that idea is that there is a ceiling to popularity when you aren't also striving for improvement. Or in other words: If you cater too directly to what is popular now, you risk missing out on what will be popular in the future.

 

[Parmandur]

You're not wrong, but the flaw to that idea is that there is a ceiling to popularity when you aren't also striving for improvement. Or in other words: If you cater too directly to what is popular now, you risk missing out on what will be popular in the future.

Well, sure, that's why they do all these marketing surveys and data collection, to stay on the ball.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well, sure, that's why they do all these marketing surveys and data collection, to stay on the ball.

Sure. But to add complexity to the issue there is also another axis: One must be very careful to cater to their existing fans (who do a lot of free outreach) while also looking to court new fans. In addition, just because something is popular, does not mean that it is the most popular version of that thing that can exist. It is very possible that something different could be more popular than a popular thing, were it given a try. Or a popular thing would be more popular if it were tweaked.

My point is: It's complicated! At least they are trying to make changes in a system that is rigged against change. And as much as as a player, I'm always up for bigger changes to D&D - we're not even close to a version that I imagine would be maximum D&D yet - as a game retailer, I'm very glad that they are taking a conservative approach.

Make a better 5e without breaking too many eggs, fine. Hopefully we can keep fixing the game's underlying issues as we go along.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure. But to add complexity to the issue there is also another axis: One must be very careful to cater to their existing fans (who do a lot of free outreach) while also looking to court new fans. In addition, just because something is popular, does not mean that it is the most popular version of that thing that can exist. It is very possible that something different could be more popular than a popular thing, were it given a try. Or a popular thing would be more popular if it were tweaked.

My point is: It's complicated! At least they are trying to make changes in a system that is rigged against change. And as much as as a player, I'm always up for bigger changes to D&D - we're not even close to a version that I imagine would be maximum D&D yet - as a game retailer, I'm very glad that they are taking a conservative approach.

Make a better 5e without breaking too many eggs, fine. Hopefully we can keep fixing the game's underlying issues as we go along.

Well, I would acknowledge that complexity, but I would say that it isn't the system that I'd against change, but the player base. The system just gathers the data and recognizes what's there.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well, I would acknowledge that complexity, but I would say that it isn't the system that I'd against change, but the player base. The system just gathers the data and recognizes what's there.

The players are a big part of the system that I was referring to. I meant the whole system, not just the system by which they gather feedback. The big picture resists change. (Ultimately likely because people resist change). Which can be unfortunate, but can also avoid disaster. It is what it is.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You can do it at 3rd level and 4 times per short rest. I get its not the same as at-will but this is a gross exaggeration.

Oh you're right.

It's actually WAY worse than at-will, not just terribly.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Yeah, a Battlemaster is a far cry from Warlord. The closest thing would rather be a Sword/Valor Bard, who just beats people in melee and spends their (much more numerous than 4 x per short rest maneuver dice) spell slots on bonus action buffs for his allies... only Bard only gets Healing Word?

Well, that mimicking didn't go far.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You take a battlemaster and give them the Commander's strike and Rally maneuvers....and to me you have the bulk of the "warlord" that has been shown in 4e.

This feels to me like an example from a "[The warlord] we have at home" meme.

• Rally is a cheap knock-off of Inspiring Word. It hands out an effective forcefield (temp hp) rather than allowing the PC to dig deep into their own resources (by spending hit dice) and, crucially, you can't yell at people to stop laying down on the job or to get up once they are at 0hp
• Commander's Strike is extremely limited use because it fights with everything else for resources; it was based on an At Will and should be a fighting style.
• There's no Powerful Warning/"Duck!" style ability where the warlord can protect their allies.
• There's no e.g. synchronised charges.

When you say "you have the bulk of the "warlord" that has been shown in 4e" that's like saying that a plate full of noodles and a couple of spring onions is the bulk of a Pad Thai. I mean you are technically correct and you have the bulk. But not the taste or even most of the nutrition.