EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
So, no growth in HP, no growth in damage, no growth in AC, no growth in features, no growth in skills...I'm of the opinion that 4E and 5E have unnecessarily high HP counts. I think that if every PC had hit points within a range of like 20 to 35 for the entirety of their careers it would make creating balanced challenges easier. Granted, this would need to be coupled with reworked rules for hitting 0 HP and dying... but I'd rather that then trying to grind down PCs that have 100 HP or more every fight. But that's just my feeling on the matter and I know is not close to being a widespread opinion.
It sounds like you want people to play 1st level characters from the word "go" until the campaign ends. What's the point of that?
Come on now. There's a vast gulf between "don't bother giving extra options, you can't make one size fit all" and, y'know, actually offering a spectrum of options.But my real point is that you can't please everyone. There will always be compromises, there is no one size fits all and there is no such thing as a perfect game.
And for someone who wants "a warrior class with more flexibility or different flavor" and doesn't want to use magic, what are we supposed to do?I think we have a lot of threads about it because a few folks who frequent these boards are aghast that a simpler build is available to appeal to players who want/need that style of play.
If someone wants a warrior class with more flexibility or different flavor, they can choose a monk, ranger, paladin, barbarian, or a subclass like Eldritch Knight. And if that still doesn't work, take a look at a more tactical, crunchy d20 system like Level Up, Pathfinder 1e or 2e, etc.
Exactly.It's unfortunate design that they chose to make this be Fighter and only Fighter.
Yep. Just like how human is almost always the most popular race, whether it's awesome or terrible. Standard human in 5e is weak; not as weak as PHB dragonborn, but it's definitely on the weaker side. And yet IIRC it was always the #1 choice in every data set collected from D&D Beyond and the like. It has literally nothing to do with whether the feature is good or bad, well-made or weak, and everything to do with "human is just broadly appealing, no matter how it's implemented." The aesthetic vastly outweighs the implementation.Because of the basic concept.
That's it.
Just like people want a magical warrior type, but don't have it, a lot of other people want a character whose primary deal is that they're a skilled warrior, in armour, probably with a sword of some kind. I will say it seems to rather less popular with younger players than older, in my experience anyway. Whereas say, Rogue is as popular as it ever was.
Same reason why Blood Elves are one of the most popular Horde races in WoW. They're pretty, but still get to be part of the "savage" Horde.
Hey, there's a brilliant idea. Just make sure it's far too onerous to actually use any of a class's abilities, and then it's perfectly balanced with the class that doesn't get any abilities to start with! </sarcasm>Spells arnt broken if you forget you have them eighty percent of the time!
Yeah. It's...really frustrating that that seems to have been--and still be--an intentional design choice in D&D.