NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9069637" data-attributes="member: 7023840">See, here's the thing. Sometimes, the so-called argument isn't about the thing really being argued about.I don't actually think that there is a real and serious debate about a desire for a simple martial option. If you played 5e (I know that you're not a 5e player) you know that a simple martial option is incredibly popular, especially for new players. It is not "confirmation bias" when the data repeatedly shows the same things that we all see in games. For that matter, we all know that WoTC designs things based on popularity, so the continued existence of a relatively simple martial class- both one that came out of the extensive Next testing, as well as being reiterated in this design phase, is indicative of player demand- unless you subscribe to the whole, "WoTC is lying to us! They are just discarding all the data and designing something people hate, which resulted in a popular game, because lizard people. Also? Just imagine how much more popular the game would be if they designed based on my personal preferences!"If there was a good-faith belief in this (as opposed to trying to discount the extant, extensive, and readily available evidence), people would instead be stating something like the following- Hey, I know people want more complex options for martials because the Battlemaster is actually the most popular fighter subclass! Which we aren't seeing, because ... that's not the case.So what is this really about? Well, there are people who want D&D to be more "tactically interesting." That is their right! I hope they get what they want. But this has been a constant refrain since ... well, let's just say it's been going on for a decade. 5e went in a different direction. At a certain point, it would seem quite clear that there is a high demand for a simple martial class, and that WoTC is designing for that demand.Instead of arguing with this, it might be better to actually advocate for a NON-FIGHTER, complex martial class. Or something else. Because arguing with the data doesn't seem overly productive. But I won't (and can't!) stop you. At a certain point, however, you have to understand that people get tired of hearing, "Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes? And the lying stats? And the lying people creating the game based on the surveys?"</blockquote>

Verification