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

[EzekielRaiden]

Imbalance is subjective.

No. Tolerance for degrees of imbalance is subjective.

Imbalance is, in the vast majority of cases, rooted in objective analysis.

Not every forum goer is that interested in mechanics.

Doesn't this blow a hole wide open in the claim, then, that forum-goers are necessarily incapable of representing the average player specifically because people have asserted that forum-goers are more interested in mechanics than the average player?

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.

.........

Okay now you're literally making my own arguments FOR me.

That's very literally what I'm telling you. When folks play for a while, they figure out "oh, $#!+, you can get WAY more out of playing a Druid with Natural Spell and a bear pet than without that feat and with a panther pet."

It's not some 42069 IQ play where you have to have crunched a thousand spreadsheets and sifted through three dozen supplements and read every guide and yadda yadda yadda. It's literally just being a smart person and paying attention to things that work. That's all it takes. A smart person will want to use the most effective choices available to them, so long as they don't feel the cost of effectiveness is too high. "Play a Cleric instead of a Fighter" is going to be a no-brainer for a lot of casual players, because they aren't attached to the name "Fighter" like forum-goers are!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Not at all.

It is a matter of one player being GIVEN superiority by the game, solely for their aesthetic choices, while another is crapped on by the game, solely for their aesthetic choices.

This is a game design principle I despise.

 

[Zardnaar]

It doesn't need DMM cheese. Literally just the PHB1 Druid, played with even a modicum of intelligence, will outshine Fighters or Monks in the party. You get an entire SECOND CHARACTER. For free. That is almost as good as having another Fighter in the party!

Druid was also the least played class.

I suspect very few saw an optimized druid in the party.

I also suspect very few people played high level then either. Progression was slower than 5E.

So the ABC 5 and 5-10;levels of theory crafting were theory crafting.

I had more books thsn most. Didn't see that much of it (cheesy bard and 3.0 cleric worst I ). Back then we had 6-8 hour sessions as well

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I suspect very few saw an optimized druid in the party.

You keep tripping on the word "optimized".

You don't need to be optimized.

You just need to be not-stupid. Genuinely. Plenty of people I've talked to--on and off forums--have specifically seen people stumble into ridiculously OP stuff. Because that's how utterly borked 3rd Edition was.

 

[Zardnaar]

No. Tolerance for degrees of imbalance is subjective.

Imbalance is, in the vast majority of cases, rooted in objective analysis.


Doesn't this blow a hole wide open in the claim, then, that forum-goers are necessarily incapable of representing the average player specifically because people have asserted that forum-goers are more interested in mechanics than the average player?


.........

Okay now you're literally making my own arguments FOR me.

That's very literally what I'm telling you. When folks play for a while, they figure out "oh, $#!+, you can get WAY more out of playing a Druid with Natural Spell and a bear pet than without that feat and with a panther pet."

It's not some 42069 IQ play where you have to have crunched a thousand spreadsheets and sifted through three dozen supplements and read every guide and yadda yadda yadda. It's literally just being a smart person and paying attention to things that work. That's all it takes. A smart person will want to use the most effective choices available to them, so long as they don't feel the cost of effectiveness is too high. "Play a Cleric instead of a Fighter" is going to be a no-brainer for a lot of casual players, because they aren't attached to the name "Fighter" like forum-goers are!

Average player only plays around 3 years apparently. A lot dont find games.

I've suspected forum goers are not representative since around 2002/3.

You cant objectively min max as everyone's biased. Number crunching DPR maybe but you can't account for how useful that is.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Average player only plays around 3 years apparently. A lot dont find games.

I've suspected forum goers are not representative since around 2002/3.

So....

WotC built D&D 5e based on feedback from unrepresentative forum-goers who created a game that most people play for only a couple of years and then quit?

That sounds like a really damning conclusion!

 

[James Gasik]

It's worth noting that, in the hands of a skilled player, one can make a Fighter that can outperform a mediocre spellcaster. Sure, the floor and ceiling are different, but let's not get too hung up on what could potentially happen. Anyone who frequented 3.5 boards back in the day are no doubt well acquainted with "Monkday", an event that occurred once a fortnight or so where a thread would appear with someone complaining about how busted/great Monks are, long after conventional wisdom had proved how terrible the class was.

Because what happens at a given table, with a given group, can vary wildly from expectations. Like the time I played an optimized Rogue in a PF1e game with a neophyte GM, and they complained about how busted Rogues were- all because I was dealing more damage than the other players in a fight where I could use Sneak Attack at low level.

 

[Zardnaar]

So....

WotC built D&D 5e based on feedback from unrepresentative forum-goers who created a game that most people play for only a couple of years and then quit?

That sounds like a really damning conclusion!

They built it with 250k+ survey iirc.

Mearls did say what tgey surveyed was very different to online discourse.

Blowback vs 4E was fairly universal offlibe as well. And mirrored irl with rise of Pathfinfer, collapse of organized play etc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Blowback vs 4E was fairly universal offlibe as well. And mirrored irl with rise of Pathfinfer, collapse of organized play etc.

Almost entirely among forum-goers.

So where does that put your analysis here? It was the forum-goers who hated 4e. Their sustained hate campaign would have been impressive if it weren't so depressing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Almost entirely among forum-goers.

So where does that put your analysis here? It was the forum-goers who hated 4e. Their sustained hate campaign would have been impressive if it weren't so depressing.

In that specific instance forum goers reflected real life.

Not other way around. I dont think forum goers have that much influence.

I would pick to play a game of 4E over 3.5bbevause I never got to play it. I would run 3.5 over 4E as I lack 4E splat. 3.5 realms was also really good.