D&D 5E (2024) A critical analysis of 2024's revised classes

[Minigiant]

Maybe this is a bit more of a spotlight issue than I thought it was...

It is a spotlight issue because some people will hog spotlight via indirect control and some people are bored the very concept of indirect control of their PCs.

 

[TwoSix]

That's my point. Those players should get over themselves. Those players not only got to completely come up with the idea, they convinced the other players that it was a good idea, and then they saw the idea they came up with entirely work out to a T... And yet that's not enough for them? They also need their "PC" to be the one to do it 'in-game', otherwise it doesn't count?

No thanks. I think those players might need to check their egos a bit.

Unfortunately for that plan, I think a lot of players are attached to their one particular PC, not that they’re contributing a fraction of a party gestalt that everyone is sharing in.

I think most TTRPGs are meant to be distinct from a cooperative game like Pandemic where role agency is assumed to be secondary to the function of the group.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Thats a whole different problem.

There are

1. Simple superheroic warrior fans
2. Simple mundane warrior with "guaranteed" magic item kits fans
3. Battlemaster/Warblade/Weaponmaster fans
4. Warlord/Marshal fans
5. People who want 1, 2, 3, and 4 to be weaker narratively than high level spellcaster

The issue is group 5. There is enough group 5 to tank general open surveys.

I don't think anybody in groups 1 through 4 would really care if you explicitly design a class for 1 through 4 each individually.

The issue is that you pretty much have those four groups plus a couple more fighting for more slices of the pie while you have that group 5 all by themselves continuously and focus on just pouring mud on the pizza.

Well, I don't know who these people in Group 5 are, because I do not recall ever seeing them.

 

[TwoSix]

Welcome to D&D2024. Unless you have an extreme AoE situation plus a caster with access to strong AoE spells, which they happened to have prepared, martial classes utterly dominate combat.

For example, my current level 8 monk does a base damage of 56 HP every round while also automatically applying the poison condition and forcing the target to make a save or be grappled. No caster at level 8 has anything close to that kind of reliable impact, round in, round out.

56 base damage seems really high for level 8. You did multiply that by an assumed hit rate, right? (DPR calculations without hit rates are invalid for any sort of comparison purposes.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

Unfortunately for that plan, I think a lot of players are attached to their one particular PC, not that they’re contributing a fraction of a party gestalt that everyone is sharing in.

I think most TTRPGs are meant to be distinct from a cooperative game like Pandemic where role agency is assumed to be secondary to the function of the group.

No PC can do everything. And the game is never going to be made such that every PC can do everything, because then what's the point of making PCs distinct?

Which means yes... occasionally a player just might have to be a grown-up and merely think up the cool idea and then have their PC tell another one of the PCs in the party to do it. And then when the cool idea works... be satisfied that their idea was the one that worked. And not require the game to pat them on the head by making sure every idea of theirs that they come up with can be accomplished by their own PC 100% of the time.

 

[Minigiant]

No PC can do everything. And the game is never going to be made such that every PC can do everything, because then what's the point of making PCs distinct?

Which means yes... occasionally a player just might have to be a grown-up and merely think up the cool idea and then have their PC tell another one of the PCs in the party to do it. And then when the cool idea works... be satisfied that their idea was the one that worked. And not require the game to pat them on the head by making sure every idea of theirs that they come up with can be accomplished by their own PC 100% of the time.

I think the rub is that if the DM is not skilled at spotlight sharing, a player's character can have huge swathes of time where neither they or another character is suggesting that their character is doing a cool thing.

So either they have to start suggesting to other PC or you risk players feeling like they aren't helping.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, I don't know who these people in Group 5 are, because I do not recall ever seeing them.

Its subliminal and or insidious.

Typically it's found and people who both say that warriors shouldn't have supernatural abilities while explanation as well as saying that the DM is not obligated to give them the warrior only items or boons that would be those explanations.

 

[Lanefan]

I can't say that I've seen wizard partisans arguing that the class should be the best... like, ever. I don't think I've ever actually seen that, at least not that I can actually remember.

Wizard partisans don't argue their class should be the best per se, instead ever since mid-2e-era they just incessantly low-grade argue for a little relaxation of a restriction here, a bit less risk to a spell there, a slight power-up to a spell somewhere else, more opportunities to cast per day, on and on and on......and before you know it, wizards are the best by default.

Why? Because all those now-removed restrictions and limitations are what once kept mages in balance.

 

[ECMO3]

Why wouldn't they be? They're getting exactly what they asked for. They're being catered to.

You yourself are one of them. You have straight-up argued that that's what the game should be: casters that are just better than non-casters. Of course you'd

Sure, but that is not specific to Wizards and I have not argued Wizards should be better than other full casters.

find it peaceful!


Why wouldn't they be? See above.

Because Rangers, Rogues, Barbarians and in 2014 Monks are all substantially weaker than fighters at most levels and they don't generate the same Vitriol for being less powerful than a Wizard.

You act like it's a surprise that the people getting shortchanged are annoyed and the people getting actively courted are pleased.

I don't think any players are getting shortchanged, you could argue characters are, but they aren't real people. Personally I play more Fighters (and Rangers and Monks and Rogues) than I play Wizards and I don't feel I am shortchanged as a player.

 

[ECMO3]

rogues, barbs and monks do tend to have a handful of abilities that let them do different stuff but the fighters seem to get barest amount of things they can do, some of which even require them to cut into their combat capability resources to achieve which is why discussions tend to focus on them.

I don't think this is why. Fighters in 2024 can do way more than Monks or Barbarians and more than Rogues at many levels.

With tactical mind, the 2024 Fighter is generally the best skill Monkey in the game from level 2-6 and they remain the best for very difficult checks even after that. Rogues are situationally better and they are generally better at level 1 and better for a few moderate difficulty checks at level 7+, but Fighters are king in tier1 and low tier 2 as far as the non-magic classes go.

They do require resources, but that resource cost is minimal, both because the combat use is weak anyway, and statistically you need to make a ton of skill checks, like 20+, to really even scratch the surface at using a substantial number of their daily resource budget for second wind.