D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[EzekielRaiden]

Indeed. Wizards are DIFFICULT TO PLAY. That's your balance. They are extremely powerful - if you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules and a good grasp of tactics.

No. They are not difficult to play. They are annoying to play. There is a very big gap between the two. Tedium is not difficulty. There's very little that is difficult about the Wizard.

They aren't. It's a level playing field. It doesn't matter how powerful your character is because D&D is about playing a role, not being the best.

The difference between the main character and a sidekick is that the main character makes the decisions, not that the main character is more powerful.

Okay. So if it's a level playing field, it doesn't factor into the comparison, does it? Which means we're right back to square one. The Wizard does everything you've suggested the Fighter do--and then also gets a bunch of spells to make that easier, better, faster, stronger, etc., etc.

Because that's the issue here. Or, as has been referenced so many times before, Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit. BMX Bandit is very clearly trying to take the lead, strategize, voice his opinions, interact with others, and make use of his skills. And then Angel Summoner just summons angels to deal with the problem--or, in some ways worse (from a player perspective I mean), patronizingly pretends that BMX Bandit is using his own skills, when it's actually angels doing the job for him.

The Fighter has to request permission to be cool. The Wizard has to be interfered with so she doesn't do all the cool things herself. Because it's safer, easier, more effective, faster, etc. to solve problems with magic as much as possible, and the design of the game naturally encourages all characters to warp the conditions of the game to favor using their tools to solve the problem--and, as with everything else, spellcasters hold all the cards on that front. (One of the pernicious but almost never discussed flaws of spotlight balance.)

If there had been plenty of people loving anything about that edition the whole design paradigm wouldn’t have been unceremoniously scrapped.

Sure there would. It's called vocal minorities and disinformation campaigns. Again: People STILL, to this day, tell absolute, blatant falsehoods about 4e, to the point that I have had at least half a dozen posters on this forum (completely innocently!) state outright false things because they were going off what others told them about 4e, not what 4e actually was.

I already said it before: the spin doctoring was superb for tearing down 4e. If I didn't know better, I would have accused it of being planned, but I do, I know it's genuinely just a lot of angry people who felt betrayed and erased. And then that exact same grassroots spin doctoring was put into full force for both building up PF1e and, subsequently, 5e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Just like they did in 4E, except I don't remember any discussion from that era where people complained about issues with martials being weak or underpowered.

No, they companied that by focusing on combat the game no longer felt like D&D.

 

[Oofta]

It's not about power.

It's about fantasy.

D&D 5e and most 5e 3pp don't provide martial fantasies. It's all magic warriors.

Again they all keep making magic fighters.

Has anybody made a master swordsman fighter subclass yet? Or an expert marksman Fighters subclass?

We don't need a separate master swordsman or expert marksman because that's what fighters already are. What would they be that isn't already covered? I think the sword-and-board fighter gets a bit of a short shrift in the Sage Advice that says shield bash can only occur after all attacks have been resolved (I don't follow that rule). But with appropriate feats, fighters have multiple ways of filling those tropes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Outside of 4E, no fighter has ever been what some people want in the history of D&D. Even 4E, based on other recent threads, the power level didn't come close. Yes, my 30th level fighter did a lot of damage, had control and auras in 4E but they couldn't "split a ship in two because their sword is so sharp".

Weird response to my request for clarification on what game you think this forum is dedicated to.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They are annoying to play.

So, your solution is to make fighters equally annoying.

Okay. So if it's a level playing field, it doesn't factor into the comparison, does it?

It factors into the "I feel like a sidekick" complaint. No changes to game mechanics are going to change that, it's a player issue*, not a mechanics issue.

*And a DM issue, a good DM should do more to make all players feel equally significant.

 

[Oofta]

Weird response to my request for clarification on what game you think this forum is dedicated to.

Weird response to my saying that the forum is dedicated to D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And as an extension to that, if you give a fighter too many bells and whistles, irrespective of if they are themed as magic, superpowers or completely natural, you would find that people won't want to play that either.

In many cases yes, depending on the player and their complexity threshold. Different versions of D&D are (or at least should) be designed for different players with different preferences. Level Up, for example, was designed for fans of 5e generally who wanted more crunch.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Aesthetics.

People are trying to frame this thing as if it about some unhinged thirst for power or whatever, but what people want is for the classes to be more balanced so that they don't feel like sidekicks if they pick the "wrong" archetype. I retired my previous fighter because I got into some major sidekick territory and it sucked.

Um, not to point out the obvious, but "sidekick" as opposed to "leading role" isn't about aesthetics- it's power.

It's the whole point behind this-

You aren't asking about aesthetic changes; you want to "re-balance" the classes, because you want to make one class more powerful because, for you, that class is just a "sidekick." In this post, you've couched it about expectations for people looking at the highest level, but it's the same old debate we've seen in countless threads recently. Call it LFQW, or "the warlord," or "Why isn't 5e the same as 4e," or just, generically, "The Martial/Caster divide."

Whether this is true for other people (as you've seen from the pushback, it's certainly not universally true) is one thing. Whether it's true, but still not an issue is another thing.

But you have to start by at least understanding what you are asking. It's not a question of aesthetics. Moreover, it's not a question of options (as had been pointed out, there are numerous ways to achieve your goal, from different games, to 3PP, to homebrew). So you're not asking for people to provide a solution.

From what I understand, then, what this is about is that you just want people to acknowledge your grievance and agree with you, and/or for WoTC to officially do something about it. WoTC is unlikely to officially do something about it, and I would assume that this thread will likely have the same amount of people agreeing with you, and disagreeing with you, as the other threads we've had on the subject recently.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. They are not difficult to play. They are annoying to play. There is a very big gap between the two. Tedium is not difficulty. There's very little that is difficult about the Wizard.


Okay. So if it's a level playing field, it doesn't factor into the comparison, does it? Which means we're right back to square one. The Wizard does everything you've suggested the Fighter do--and then also gets a bunch of spells to make that easier, better, faster, stronger, etc., etc.

Because that's the issue here. Or, as has been referenced so many times before, Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit. BMX Bandit is very clearly trying to take the lead, strategize, voice his opinions, interact with others, and make use of his skills. And then Angel Summoner just summons angels to deal with the problem--or, in some ways worse (from a player perspective I mean), patronizingly pretends that BMX Bandit is using his own skills, when it's actually angels doing the job for him.

The Fighter has to request permission to be cool. The Wizard has to be interfered with so she doesn't do all the cool things herself. Because it's safer, easier, more effective, faster, etc. to solve problems with magic as much as possible, and the design of the game naturally encourages all characters to warp the conditions of the game to favor using their tools to solve the problem--and, as with everything else, spellcasters hold all the cards on that front. (One of the pernicious but almost never discussed flaws of spotlight balance.)


Sure there would. It's called vocal minorities and disinformation campaigns. Again: People STILL, to this day, tell absolute, blatant falsehoods about 4e, to the point that I have had at least half a dozen posters on this forum (completely innocently!) state outright false things because they were going off what others told them about 4e, not what 4e actually was.

I already said it before: the spin doctoring was superb for tearing down 4e. If I didn't know better, I would have accused it of being planned, but I do, I know it's genuinely just a lot of angry people who felt betrayed and erased. And then that exact same grassroots spin doctoring was put into full force for both building up PF1e and, subsequently, 5e.

Whether or not a class is annoying to play is a preference issue. Playing a wizard is annoying for you.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure it does, I see lots of people playing fighters with no complaints.

And I've seen people complain that 5e doesn't provide those martial fantasies.