D&D 5E Blow it up! What class need to be completely re-worked in 5e?

[Sacrosanct]

I hate to burst your delicate little snow-globe, but gamers that also follow sports are not the preciously unique snowflakes that our mothers told us that we were.

Dude, WTH is up with this hostile response? I wasn't claiming to be super special or anything, only that huge sports fans that are also huge gamers are pretty rare. And they (we) are. I am the only one in my group who is, and I can walk into my FLGS right now with all the people playing their CCG matches and say, "Man, I hope the Seahawks don't trade Sherman" and would be met with either blank stares, or be totally ignored. If I say that in a sports bar, watch the heck out because I've just lit the tinder box. Likewise, if I go into a sports bar and yell, "4e sucks, it's not real D&D" nobody would pay attention to me, or know what the hell I'm talking about.

As an aside, I am about done with the term "snowflake". I am at the point that whenever I hear someone say that, I immediately judge them. I am so tired of constantly hearing that, because it's almost exclusively used in the context of someone insulting someone else while trying to imply that if they disagree with the offensive thing you just said, it's their problem and not yours for being the one who said the offensive thing.

 

[Belltent]

Really? Then why do you treat the Moon Druid as the "Druid" and the Land Druid as an unfortunate roadbloack in your goal to make the druid into something that it's not? If you want to spend your time tanking and fighting in animal forms your sole prerogative, then you should just make another class entirely. Full stop. But it's important to understand that a druid in D&D is a fullcaster with shapeshifting. And when you propose that a druid is the shapeshifter and that the shaman is the fullcaster, that there will be people who play druids like myself who will oppose the destruction of one of their favorite classes and what makes it appealing.

All I'm saying is that if you pick moon, you are given a playstyle that you eventually level yourself out of. If you pick land, your specilization nets you an ability that every wizard gets. They are weaker together. More well-rounded, perhaps, but weaker. I would rather have a good, 1-20 shapeshifting character if that's what I wanted and a good, 1-20 nature/totemic/summoning/companion/whatever caster character if that's what I wanted. I couldn't care less about what title they get.

I like hot coffee and iced coffee, but lukewarm coffee is gross.

 

[TwoSix]

Dude, WTH is up with this hostile response? I wasn't claiming to be super special or anything, only that huge sports fans that are also huge gamers are pretty rare. And they (we) are. I am the only one in my group who is, and I can walk into my FLGS right now with all the people playing their CCG matches and say, "Man, I hope the Seahawks don't trade Sherman" and would be met with either blank stares, or be totally ignored. If I say that in a sports bar, watch the heck out because I've just lit the tinder box. Likewise, if I go into a sports bar and yell, "4e sucks, it's not real D&D" nobody would pay attention to me, or know what the hell I'm talking about.

Obviously, the poster you quoted was way out of line. But I do feel (anecdotally) that the sport fan/gamer combo is not as rare as you've stated. Is there a smaller percentage of sports fans among the gamer population than the population as a whole? Absolutely. Is it a "rare" percentage, like <10%? That I don't agree with. Out of the 10 gamers at my gaming tables, 5 are sports fans. And I have several friends from earlier gaming tables who are big sports fans. (Again, anecdotal data is anecdotal!) I can only offer that my observations do not follow the same trend as yours, as a counterpoint.

 

[Aldarc]

All I'm saying is that if you pick moon, you are given a playstyle that you eventually level yourself out of. If you pick land, your specilization nets you an ability that every wizard gets. They are weaker together. More well-rounded, perhaps, but weaker. I would rather have a good, 1-20 shapeshifting character if that's what I wanted and a good, 1-20 nature/totemic/summoning/companion/whatever caster character if that's what I wanted. I couldn't care less about what title they get.

I like hot coffee and iced coffee, but lukewarm coffee is gross.

Quite the opposite. They are stronger together. A moon druid, IMHO, should never be spending all their time in wild shape, but also remember that they are fierce casters as well who are capable of manipulating the battlefield in their favor with spells before (or even after or during) wild shape. Likewise a land druid should never be spending all their time casting, but also remembering that they have wild shape as a useful tool at their disposal. The biggest problem, IMHO, with the deign of the 5e druid is that the chassis of the 5e druid incentivizes the moon druid over the land druid.

(Also, that petty "ability that every wizard gets" that you dismiss so readily is the envy of many other casters.)

 

[TwoSix]

All I'm saying is that if you pick moon, you are given a playstyle that you eventually level yourself out of. If you pick land, your specilization nets you an ability that every wizard gets. They are weaker together. More well-rounded, perhaps, but weaker. I would rather have a good, 1-20 shapeshifting character if that's what I wanted and a good, 1-20 nature/totemic/summoning/companion/whatever caster character if that's what I wanted. I couldn't care less about what title they get.

This is the exact conundrum that led WotC to split druids up into 3 classes in 4e.

 

[Sacrosanct]

[MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION], I keep getting notifications you are quoting me this thread, but they are all hidden because apparently you have me on your ignore list. But obviously you can see my posts because you keep quoting me. So there is a forum bug there somewhere. So either take me off of your list if you want to quote me, or stop quoting me if your goal was to ignore me. Otherwise I don't see the point of putting someone on ignore while still continuing to quote them. I tried initially to send a PM, but since you have me on ignore, it won't allow me.

 

[Aldarc]

This is the exact conundrum that led WotC to split druids up into 3 classes in 4e.

That decision likely had more to do with 4e's obsession with ticking boxes for roles within power sources.

 

[TwoSix]

That decision likely had more to do with 4e's obsession with ticking boxes for roles within power sources.

Partly, but 4e's desire to stretch the druid into the more broad Primal power source was also derived from the 3e druid being so multifaceted. (Or, as the kids these days like to say, OP.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I like Venn Diagrams. Yeah, I said it. Come at me.

Yeah, me too... must be a nerd thang.

So I was thinking to myself, "Self,...

And that's still hilarious - which puts any approval I express into perspective.

Anyway, when I think of two circles that might never touch, I think of TTRPG hobbyists and sports fans. And yet, there are a few of us. ... that they just need to BLOW IT UP and start over.

Well, if it works in the NBA, why not D&D?

Oh, so many reasons. Just one that comes to mind: an industry with revenue in the billions vs the millions.

what class needs to be killed, and started over from scratch?

Radical answer: The Warlock is probably the best mechanical design this ed - so, all the others.

Less Radical: Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Ranger, & Sorcerer.

Virtually serious: Fighter, Ranger, Sorcerer - they're the ones that seem to have both conceptual and mechanical issues.

Paladin - END THE PALADIN. NOW. This is your chance.

I was going to ask: Blown up & rebuilt from scratch, or just blown up, and the pieces swept under a carpet somewhere?

My nomination for blowing up and forgetting about would be the Monk - genre inappropriate and should be a background, not a class. Also, Barbarian - genre appropriate, but still should be a background, not a class.

Wizard - A little too Harry Potter?

... or not Harry Potter enough...?

As always, this thread is for discussion and for fun. No actual classes will be harmed and/or blown up as the result of this thread.

Good to know.

 

[Satyrn]

What? Yeah, the Raptors are sort of like the Rangers. The Rangers are getting knocked out tonight!

Quoting myself to say

I was right!
I should have bet on it