Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5955260" data-attributes="member: 2067">I think in these conversations it's important to keep in mind the concept of tiers. A mundane fighter might not be competing with a world-imploding mega-wizard. They might be competing with Mr. Magic Missile & Sleep. Pew pew, done. In other words, it's possible to have both fighters and wizards be on the pathetic side. They're just "low-tier."Meanwhile, if the wizard creates galaxies where he lives tax-free and the fighter slays dragons with a single grumpy snort, neither of them are "low-tier" anymore. Some might even say that fighters must be limited to low-tier (graduating to something more epic/mystical/magical at high tier), if they want. This would be keeping in genre, even. Anyway, that's just to say that there's lots of ways to conceive of this "imbalance." I don't think the 5e fighter is underpowered next to the wizard in the slightest, even though the wizard has a few more options of stuff to do than the fighter does. Simple doesn't necessarily mean ineffective.A) Haters gonna hate.B) People get defensive about fighters. 4e was probably the first edition to get the balance mostly right (whatever else it did), and that leads a lot of people to presume that added complexity is the ONLY way to get the balance mostly right, and that if you want to simplify it, that means you want fighters to suck again. Plus, some folks just like complex fighters, and want to play them, so they don't take "There's potential problems here!" very well, necessarily, especially when combined with the above defensiveness. C) Sometimes when there's lots of options big obsessive dorks like us can find an exploit, leading to a marginal boost in effectiveness.. These boosts are ruled out in a "simpler" system.</blockquote>

Verification