D&D 5E (2024) CoDzilla? Yeah Na Its CoDGFaW.

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not sure where I said it was the only difference, but to clarify, no. It's a difference, a tangential one. When the level of hobby engagement leads someone to joining online discourse, when their exposure and experiences are now outside that of the average players, then what they observe (whether directly or as directed) is no longer an adequate bellewether of the average players' observations.

Then put it this way:

WotC themselves, using their own data about 5e, concluded that players were NOT happy about multiple underpowered options in 5.0. Warlocks and Rangers in general (and to a lesser extent Fighters in general), Berskerers and Champions in specific.

I mean, unless you're intending to argue that WotC is using bad data to design their game. If you want to make that argument, you have my full, unreserved support. Which, yes, means I'm telling you that you probably don't want to make that argument, because it would be far more useful to me than it would be to you.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I'm not sure where I said it was the only difference, but to clarify, no. It's a difference, a tangential one. When the level of hobby engagement leads someone to joining online discourse, when their exposure and experiences are now outside that of the average players, then what they observe (whether directly or as directed) is no longer an adequate bellewether of the average players' observations.

...so you DO think people on this forum are better at identifying imbalance then the average player.

this is my problem with this sort of argument - people just sort of assume that if you discuss something you can't possibly otherwise represent the average consumer of that thing. you have no way of knowing that.

 

[Lanefan]

Are...you seriously saying that no average player ever plays a Cleric or Druid?

More that an average or casual player isn't nearly as likely to figure out (other than by sheer guesswork) how to optimize those classes and make them dominant.

 

[Lanefan]

i THINK he's trying to say that if you're on this forum you're not an average player. which, like, in a SENSE is true, in that the average player doesn't use this forum, but the implication is every player on this forum is above average at playing the game and identifying imbalance, which is...definitely one of the assumptions of all time.

People here may or may not be above average at playing the game but it's pretty much ironclad they'll be above average at identifying imbalance, if for no other reason than they see endless examples of it (and complaints about it!) posted in the discussions here and thus know exactly what to look for.

 

[Zardnaar]

More that an average or casual player isn't nearly as likely to figure out (other than by sheer guesswork) how to optimize those classes and make them dominant.

This. I noticed this back in 3E. Most people couldn't or dudnt optimize like forums assumed.

Druid was kinda exception if they took natural spell. That would usually come from table talk though or if the player asked about it.

Organically building a persistent spell cleric wasnt going to happen at least optimized build.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

More that an average or casual player isn't nearly as likely to figure out (other than by sheer guesswork) how to optimize those classes and make them dominant.

They don't need to "figure out" anything. The innate, radical imbalance is so severe, more than half the time they'll just stumble into it.

 

[saviirkad]

...so you DO think people on this forum are better at identifying imbalance then the average player.

this is my problem with this sort of argument - people just sort of assume that if you discuss something you can't possibly otherwise represent the average consumer of that thing. you have no way of knowing that.

You literally are though.

Because your argument is just false if you're arguing people here are worse at playing than the average--that would mean the average player would see more overshadowing, not less!


What numbers? Oh, of course: numbers that would indicate people here are better at playing. Because you need that in order for your argument to even remotely cohere.

To be frank, this reads to me like you both feel that this is a matter of superiority of one player group over another, and so assume I must as well.

I do not.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

People here may or may not be above average at playing the game but it's pretty much ironclad they'll be above average at identifying imbalance, if for no other reason than they see endless examples of it (and complaints about it!) posted in the discussions here and thus know exactly what to look for.

frankly, considering some of the things i've seen argued on this forum, and some of the things i've seen argued off of it, i have to disagree with that assumption.

To be frank, this reads to me like you both feel that this is a matter of superiority of one player group over another, and so assume I must as well.

I do not.

let me put it this way - if you don't believe the people on this forum are meaningfully better (or worse) then the average player at spotting imbalance, then trying to refute someone saying imbalance is easy to spot because a forum user can easily spot imbalance by claiming they're not the average player is a fundamentally worthless statement that serves no actual purpose except to distract from the conversation, because there is no relevant difference being highlighted by your own admission.

 

[Zardnaar]

Imbalance is subjective.

Not every forum goer is that interested in mechanics.

Play enough D&D its usually obvious what to look for. Usually big damage spikes, ways to shut an opponent down, haste effects, tempo manipulation etc.