D&D (2024) Do you see Fighter players at your own table?

[Umbran]

Which, again, says this is more about you trying to "win an argument" than have an honest discussion.

Mod Note:
You say that as if making negative assertions on the motives of others is itself honest discussion.

Hint: It isn't. If you don't like how someone is talking, you can walk away.

As we have to regularly reiterate: DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And most people do, because playing a Martial is a fundamentally different fantasy that gets satisfied in a fundamentally different way from that of Casters.

Its the same underlying reason why a Gish feels different from either one, and why a Paladin, Ranger, or Monk feel different from that. (The common factor being, of course, that they are all different)

And this is why no one has ever once complained about the monk being weak, because it provides a different fantasy and that means it has never once been called out as being weak, poorly designed, or having any problems, right?

Wrong.

Again, sure, the classes fulfill different fantasies. People like different fantasies. That doesn't mean the classes are doing a good job fulfilling those fantasies or that "but I had fun" somehow is a shield against that mechanical failure.

No, you should just accept that balance isn't everything. Some philosophies, notably the OSR and arguably Classic, explicitly argue that balance is stupid and has no place in the game.

And some people argue the Earth is flat. Just because people argue it doesn't mean they are correct. A lack of balance at high level play is a problem.

And insofar as DND goes, the baseline for where things ought to be vis a vis class design depends on what genre DND is trying to be, and since the days of Appendix N that has always been a mix of sword and sorcery and epic fantasy. The sole things violating this kitbashed genre in 5e are things in Casters that were both deliberately designed to be broken and not incorporated into the level of play they exist at (because they deliberarely didn't design that level of play), and things that were arbitrarily denied to Martials based on the whims of 4chan trolls still pissed off over Weaboo Fightan Magic.

Nobody but trolls actually wanted casters to do all the utility heavy lifting, but thats what WOTC took from the Next playtest.

Yes, as discussed before, 40 or more years ago people decided DnD was a game where high level casters are gods who cannot be challenged. And yes, there are a group of people who insist this must always be the case.

And we will never agree that casters should be cut down to glorified commoner archers, instead of fighters being raised to the status of at least demi-gods. Because the most famous martials everyone thinks about from myth and culture history? They tended to be demi-gods.

But despite all of that, the game is still fun and works, even without extraneous DM effort, as not everybody that plays game takes it that seriously, which is the only means by which you'd start rubbing up against the system.

I would argue in fact more people play it closer to its roots as a Dungeon shooter than they do as Critical Roll, and that is why theres a huge disparity in what the online community thinks versus the greater audience.

And again "I had fun" isn't a defense against bad design.

There is a version of monopoly that was created to study psychology. It greatly and randomly favored one player over the other. It was done by Berkley I believe. One player was randomly chosen to have double the resources of the other. They would almost always win. They would almost always say they had fun, and that they won because of their skill. That doesn't mean it is a better designed version of monopoly, because it turns out, designing a massive resource gap is bad.

 

[Emberashh]

And this is why no one has ever once complained about the monk being weak, because it provides a different fantasy and that means it has never once been called out as being weak, poorly designed, or having any problems, right?

Please feel free to elaborate on where exactly I suggested, nay, even hinted at the idea that no one has ever complained about or raised a concern over, not just Monk, but any particular class at all.

That doesn't mean the classes are doing a good job fulfilling those fantasies or that "but I had fun" somehow is a shield against that mechanical failure.

See above.

And again "I had fun" isn't a defense against bad design.

For a third time, see above. Im very curious to see exactly how one can read what I posted and jump to a conclusion thats effectively on another planet. I don't even think the Hulk could accomplish such a leap. Even Worldbreaker Hulk.

Just because people argue it doesn't mean they are correct. A lack of balance at high level play is a problem.

False analogy aside, I ask you a fourth time to explain where you're getting these conclusions.

And we will never agree that casters should be cut down to glorified commoner archers

Im on record saying that you don't have to touch combat magic at all to fix Casters, and in fact could even stand to push it even farther than it goes in 5e.

To suggest I want casters smacked down to peasants with sparkly longbows is a gross strawman that needs to be put back in the barn.

Because the most famous martials everyone thinks about from myth and culture history? They tended to be demi-gods.

Not everyone thinks of ancient myths, and more than that not all ancient myths are alike. King Arthur and Beowulf are a far cry from Hercules, and much closer to the Conan-descended depictions in DND.

And again "I had fun" isn't a defense against bad design

Fifth time.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which, again, says this is more about you trying to "win an argument" than have an honest discussion.

Mod Note:

Everyone: adding stings like this in the tail of your post crosses lines. It makes things more personal, and can lead to uncivilized responses. We don’t need that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Please feel free to elaborate on where exactly I suggested, nay, even hinted at the idea that no one has ever complained about or raised a concern over, not just Monk, but any particular class at all.

Okay.

The discussion was that being fun and reporting that you had fun in a class doesn't mean it was well-designed or balanced. You countered by saying that classes don't need to be balanced because they give different fantasies, and you specifically mentioned the monk. I would think that would be a fairly obvious connection.

To replay the conversation precisely, I said "You should be able to have fun without having to say "well, I'd be better off if I was actually casting spells, but I don't care about being effective." " and your response was "And most people do, because playing a Martial is a fundamentally different fantasy that gets satisfied in a fundamentally different way from that of Casters. Its the same underlying reason why a Gish feels different from either one, and why a Paladin, Ranger, or Monk feel different from that. (The common factor being, of course, that they are all different) "

And yet, despite being a fundamentally different fantasy than the other classes, that gets satisfied in a fundamentally different way... the monk is often considered poorly designed. So, if I am to accept your position that the fighter isn't poorly designed, because it is fundamentally different... why does that same logic fail in the face of the monk?

For a third time, see above. Im very curious to see exactly how one can read what I posted and jump to a conclusion thats effectively on another planet. I don't even think the Hulk could accomplish such a leap. Even Worldbreaker Hulk.

Worldbreaker Hulk is capable of reading and following logic. You might be thinking of a different Hulk.

False analogy aside, I ask you a fourth time to explain where you're getting these conclusions.

You do realize that I can't answer until you post right? So breaking up every line of post and repeating the question doesn't actually mean anything? And it also reads like you just ignored everything I said to simply repeat your question multiple times.

Im on record saying that you don't have to touch combat magic at all to fix Casters, and in fact could even stand to push it even farther than it goes in 5e.

To suggest I want casters smacked down to peasants with sparkly longbows is a gross strawman that needs to be put back in the barn.

And yet, while you are on record about combat magic... so are OTHER people, who have demanded that casters be taken down beyond even where you want them.

Not everyone thinks of ancient myths, and more than that not all ancient myths are alike. King Arthur and Beowulf are a far cry from Hercules, and much closer to the Conan-descended depictions in DND.

Beowulf survived having his throat ripped out and only died to the venom, he in fact TALKED with his throat ripped out.

King Arthur once demolished a castle wall with a single blow of a non-magical club. That seems like a story that would be told about Heracles.

Also, let us not forget Cú Chulainn, Diarmuid Ua Duibhne, Gilgamesh, Māui, Arjuna, Turnus, Aeneas and like half of Greek Mythology including Atalanta, Hippolyta and Perseus,

And in modern stories we also get Kratos and Mathayus, the Scorpion King who was inspired by Conan.

 

[Emberashh]

So, if I am to accept your position that the fighter isn't poorly designed

Please show me where I said this.

FYI, this is all rhetorical, because I didn't say it, and rather than have a dialogue with me to address whatever it is thats making you jump to conclusions that aren't there, you've (again, as you've done this before) just doubled down on asserting Im saying something despite the fact Ive already I told you I did not say these things.

You do realize that I can't answer until you post right?

The point was to illustrate to you that you're hinging every other word out of your mouth on strawmen. I can't say Im surprised that was lost on you, though Im sure you'll just deny it rather than reflect.

so are OTHER people, who have demanded that casters be taken down beyond even where you want them.

Are these other people in the room with us right now? Surely you realize it is not rhetorically fair to act as though Im responsible for the behavior or thoughts of others, especially when they are not involved in the dialogue between you and I.

Beowulf survived having his throat ripped out and only died to the venom, he in fact TALKED with his throat ripped out.

King Arthur once demolished a castle wall with a single blow of a non-magical club. That seems like a story that would be told about Heracles.

Also, let us not forget Cú Chulainn, Diarmuid Ua Duibhne, Gilgamesh, Māui, Arjuna, Turnus, Aeneas and like half of Greek Mythology including Atalanta, Hippolyta and Perseus,

And in modern stories we also get Kratos and Mathayus, the Scorpion King who was inspired by Conan.

Not a single part of this actually engages what I said.

 

[Yaarel]

That doesn't mean the classes are doing a good job fulfilling those fantasies or that "but I had fun" somehow is a shield against that mechanical failure.

Because there is a sector of players who dont care about balance or mechanical optimization, the designers have a special obligation to ensure that any default options are mechanically solid choices.

The defaults dont need to be the most optimized possible. But they do need to be respectable choices from the perspective of those who do care about balance and optimization.

If a default option would be mechanically poor, that would effectively punish reallife players for liking the fantasy themes that the option represents.

This applies to the scale of class design space too. It would be unfair to the reallife players who enjoy Fighters, if casters were strictly better. Likewise, it would be unfair to the reallife players who enjoy casters, if Fighters were strictly better. The same goes for the Monk class when comparing to other classes.

To balance classes is an important responsibility of designing.

 

[Hussar]

I've never ran a table with 4 or more players that didn't have a fighter. I've run games without rogues, druids,rangers,paladins,warlocks, usually every party has a fighter, and a sorcer or wizard, and a cleric. out of those 3 the cleric is the one most likely to be replaced by a multiclass or a something odd like a healing sorcerer.

Whereas I never ran or played at a table that did.

Funny how anecdotes work.

Now, my next question. What level do your games typically end at?

 

[Hussar]

/edit - whoops, sorry, posted before reading the rest of the thread. My bad.

 

[Hussar]

Because there is a sector of players who dont care about balance or mechanical optimization, the designers have a special obligation to ensure that any default options are mechanically solid choices.

The defaults dont need to be the most optimized possible. But they do need to be respectable choices from the perspective of those who do care about balance and optimization.

If a default option would be mechanically poor, that would effectively punish reallife players for liking the fantasy themes that the option represents.

This applies to the scale of class design space too. It would be unfair to the reallife players who enjoy Fighters, if casters were strictly better. Likewise, it would be unfair to the reallife players who enjoy casters, if Fighters were strictly better. The same goes for the Monk class when comparing to other classes.

To balance classes is an important responsibility of designing.

Again, though, there is a very large gap between not caring about balance or optimization at all and laser beam focus on optimization.

I would argue that most players make a stab at being competent with their character. Usually. Granted, there's the odd one out, I'll agree. And those that play against type. Fair enough. But, by and large, most people, when they choose their character want that character to be at least in the same ballpark as the other characters.

And, again, I think that this is mostly a higher level issue. There's not many (outside of maybe a 2014 PHB Beastmaster Ranger) choices that are flat out bad in 5e. A fighter is doing perfectly fine alongside the other classes in single digit levels. Then, at about 7th or 8th level, the casters start pulling ahead. By 12th or 14th level, the gap gets REALLY noticeable.

I do honestly believe that there's a big overlap between the "Fighters get played all the time in my games" and "My games end around 10th level".

OTOH, maybe that's just my own biases talking. That could be entirely true.