Search results

Probably. The playtesting of 5e was kind of a mess. I can't say it was a huge failure, though. We just need to improve the base of the bounded accuracy d20 system, the way feats are handled, how multiclassing works, the pacing and structure of adventure encounters, and the actual guidance of the...

These are some of the things I think D&D should prioritize first. Feats are 100% unbalanced. Introducing them turns entire classes useless or underpowered and they don't even help with what people call a disparity because casters keep their breadth but they also get to cover their weaknesses...

I find those classes are distinct playstyle-wise. If it isn't obvious, I value playstyle over flavor since, again, I believe that flavor can be re-skinned as anything else with a few clever tweaks and just a pinch of suspension of disbelief. Seems obvious to not take the fly spell. Have Jump...

This is where I see a disconnect. The fighter isn't fine for you. I know this and respect this. But why not ignore the fighter and play the classes that exist already? Also, personally, I would like to avoid unnecessary bloat. If the new martial does the same thing as, say, a druid, then it is...

They feel nerfed and underwhelmed. It's hard to make a character only to realize that the character underperforms in the fantasy you feel like it advertised. And that feeling is inherent with most martial classes since you can't play a mythical warrior fantasy with just the fighter's chassis...

It might take a bit more thought, but the assumption is that the player wants to play a certain type of fiction. So the player wanting to play Hercules might take Enhance Abilities and Jump, but they wouldn't take dimension door if they didn't have to, which they oftentimes don't. And we...

This thread has gotten farther than I thought too quickly. Oh well, I guess it's catching up time. Flavorful homebrew meant that it kept all the mechanics but changed the flavor. So Cure Wounds has the same stats but it acts like a med-kit in the fictional sense. Making a new class or subclass...

I know this isn't your position specifically, but I can't seem to connect the two ideas that "martials need to be powerful enough to feel fantastic" and "casters can do everything martials can and more." Not that they're opposing, but it feels like one can interfere with the other. If martials...

Saying you want champion to be better mathematically is beyond fair. That's actually something I wish they had done. Even just increasing the range of crits would be fine. Imagine if the champion crit-hit at 16-20 for level 3 and 11-20 for level 15. It wouldn't even be too overpowered, and it'd...

This seems like a reasonable idea. Although, that UA already exists in the form of the spell-less Ranger. Keeping all the utility of the base Ranger and giving it extra stuff in the form of manuevers and other things to bolster it further. Despite being able to negate difficult parts of...

There are some of these points I would like to see expanded on. But I will say points 5 and 6 are fair enough. However, I should respond to you in kind. If we're to understand each other, I should put my points in: Arguments on my side would be: It's inefficient if it isn't a big priority...

To be clear, I do empathize a little. I have a few classes I'd like to see return or appear in D&D with their own playstyle, but saying I'm even disappointed would be too strong. But I don't understand the difference from what I don't get which I am only minority inconvenienced at best to what...

That's homebrew. And a flavorful homebrew is extremely easy to do, so if it's about having a character have the core mechanics of a certain caster but all mundane in flavor, it can be homebrewed. Even if they can't be counterspelled or don't need components, it's not the most world-breaking...

I don't see why I shouldn't be okay with that, though?

I'm not going to pretend to sympathize, though. I want to actually sympathize, but I need to understand otherwise I'm just patting people on the back saying "there, there. Maybe one day WoTC will do what you want." And I'm trying to give those who want to explain in full a platform. It's easy...

I don't have any opinion for or against it. I want to know your POV of this, because right now, if WoTC didn't cater to you, I wouldn't really feel any way. I can't feel motivated to rally behind a cause that I don't understand. It's said that it's a huge problem, but I don't see it. And so far...

It's funny you say that. I didn't come to this thread, I am the OP. And this thread wasn't (intended) to be about what people want from a complex martial, it is to understand each other and to form a discussion.

By your definition, clerics, paladins, Warlocks, Bards, and Rangers are armored wizards, while druids and Sorcerers are unarmored wizards. I don't think the only thing that makes a wizard is just that they can cast spells with components. Anyways, that doesn't matter as much as the question...

And I'm assuming you don't like that. But what, fundamentally, do you not like about that? If there was a range of complexity that intercrossed the boundary of "martial" and "caster," why does that satisfy you? The champion and wizard would still exist? Why wouldn't the conversation then be...

So then, what's wrong with magic, specifically, performing that role? It's not like such a character doesn't exist, it's just that they use magic as their proxy. I can make a Ranger exactly as that warrior-type, but that's apparently not enough. What is wrong with magic? Is it shameful that...