D&D 5E Basic already surprising us.

[Tony Vargas]

Well, this thread has done more than anything else to un-sell me on 5e, because we're fully down a wormhole where class imbalance isn't worked around, it's actively applauded and even insisted upon.

Hold on. This is people talking about the game and how they intend to play it or think it should be. It doesn't mean the game will be that way, and, if 5e were ever to deliver on its promised modularity, there might even be a module that could bring non-casters up to a competitive/balanced or genre-appropriate level.

Even if there isn't, 5e is actively trying to re-establish the acceptability of house-ruling the unholy heck out of D&D to slash/burn and kit-bash it into something better. I'm probably not going to fill a 3-inch-thick d-ring binder with variants this time around, but I could certainly add some class features to the few non-casting classes, or slash slots down to something more manageable, or whatever.

Folks are talking about a "mythic fighter" option. Like, a module to let Fighters be as cool as Beowulf.

In other words, that there should be a Fighter who's actually better than the Fighter we just got. In other other words, that there's an acknowledgment and acceptance that there could be an actual better Fighter who won't break the game's balance, but which some folks don't want to see because then the Fighter would be... stronger and more versatile? And this is what the game is being designed around?

Evoking the games past failings seems to be a necessary part of the current marketing strategy, which is presumably aimed primarily at the OSR segment of the fanbase.

 

[Agamon]

When did D&D become PvP? Some of these arguments make for some wonderful theoretical discussion, but that's about it.

 

[Boarstorm]

Evoking the games past failings seems to be a necessary part of the current marketing strategy, which is presumably aimed primarily at the OSR segment of the fanbase.

... who in turn don't see them as failings at all.

Well, presumably. I flirted with ACKS, but I'm hardly an OSR guy so I can't speak for the movement.

 

[Mistwell]

No, it's not. This is essentially the opposite of the truth.

Wizards and Fighters are playing a different game in 5e at the moment. They are in entirely different leagues in terms of the scope and power of their abilities. Wizards can stop time, reverse gravity, fly, turn invisible, summon demons and angels, etc etc etc etc. Look at the examples in this post of the different ways they can approach 'lift heavy object' alone. This is not even slightly a numerical issue.

Here is the genuine scientific proof: thousands and thousands of people found that the game is fun to play, as it is, without these issues detracting from the fun of the game.

That's the bottom line.

When you say it's the opposite of the truth, you're saying it's a lie, and I am a liar. So unless you are prepared to back that up, with proof that the game is IN ACTUAL PLAY not fun because of these issues for a substantial number of people, then it's a false accusation.

At best then you can say for you, and your preferences, it doesn't work well at that point. But, to claim it's a lie because you don't like it, that's false.

 

[Mistwell]

When did D&D become PvP? Some of these arguments make for some wonderful theoretical discussion, but that's about it.

Exactly. You have guys saying basically "Class X can kick Class Y's butt at activity Z" rather than "When I played I found it unfun because Class X was more powerful than Class Y at activity Z". We're not seeing play reports from people, we're seeing tons of theoretical whining based on pvp number crunching.

Play reports are coming out extraordinarily positive. That's the most important question for a prospective player - do the people who play it have fun? If yes, maybe give it a try then.

 

[Obryn]

When did D&D become PvP?

When NPCs are built (and monsters are advanced) using the PC rules.

 

[Jack the Lad]

Here is the genuine scientific proof: thousands and thousands of people found that the game is fun to play, as it is, without these issues detracting from the fun of the game.

That's the bottom line.

When you say it's the opposite of the truth, you're saying it's a lie, and I am a liar. So unless you are prepared to back that up, with proof that the game is IN ACTUAL PLAY not fun because of these issues for a substantial number of people, then it's a false accusation.

At best then you can say for you, and your preferences, it doesn't work well at that point. But, to claim it's a lie because you don't like it, that's false.

I deliberately and specifically did not quote the part of your post about fun. To reiterate:

The imbalance we're talking about is really more of a "when you look with a microscope with the numbers, they turn out to not be the same". In actual game play, for any non-optimizer, it's essentially a wash.

This is the bit that's the opposite of the truth. I won't say that it's a lie, because a lie implies malice. But it's not true.

The issue is not a numerical one. It's not a wash in actual game play.

Fighters are not in the same ballpark as Wizards, and my posts explain how and why.

 

[Capricia]

Exactly. You have guys saying basically "Class X can kick Class Y's butt at activity Z" rather than "When I played I found it unfun because Class X was more powerful than Class Y at activity Z". We're not seeing play reports from people, we're seeing tons of theoretical whining based on pvp number crunching.

Play reports are coming out extraordinarily positive. That's the most important question for a prospective player - do the people who play it have fun? If yes, maybe give it a try then.

There's a positive correlation between "likes the idea of unbalanced fighters and wizards" and "enjoys 5e". There's a negative correlation between "likes the idea of balanced characters" and "enjoys 5e".

The reason we're so passionate about this is because we want more people to enjoy this dying hobby, and moves like this are going to turn people away. Purity tests like this are just going to kill the game, no matter how much the "true believers" like it.

 

[Agamon]

When NPCs are built (and monsters are advanced) using the PC rules.

Good thing we're talking about 5e then, where that's only the case if you really want it to be as a DM.

 

[Andor]

If, at 20th level, your "Fighter" cannot leap across chasms or walk through walls it is because you deliberately chose to make him incapable of achieving those things.

Even if you start with the uttermost basic "Fighter-Folk Hero" at first level you have had 19 opportunities to dip into classes which will give you access to supernatural powers. Not to mention feats, or the "Eldritch Knight" Archtype if that is retained from the alpha.

"But!" I hear you complain "Then he's not a fighter anymore!" To which I call BS. Classes are not visible in the game. Some of the baggage associated with them is. Membership in the Druid order, a Warlocks pact, a Cleric or Paladin's divine grace. But it appears to be really, really easy to dabble in supernatural powers in 5e. And if you don't like spells pick up a few monk levels, or refluff them as calling up the power of your divine blood. Plus what's wrong with having a signature piece of gear? Even some of the GODS of myth and legend are known as much for their kit as thier personal powers, from Mjolnir to Zeuses lightning bolts (Not inherant, but forged by Vulcan,) to Hercules who was strong, but also wore an impenetrable lion skin and used arrows poisoned with Hydra blood.

And if that isn't enough then you should admit to yourself that it's not that 5e won't support what you want that's the problem, it's that it also supports what other people want and you don't approve of our badwrongfun.