D&D Beyond shared some stats about the things people are using from Explorers Guide to Wildemount. These are stats from 28 million characters.
You're putting words into my mouth and then demanding I "prove" them? Please do not do that.
I said they're overpowered. Not "broken". I don't use those terms interchangeably. Those are two different things, at least by degree. Hence people often saying "broken overpowered" when describing stuff in computer games, to mean something isn't merely problematic (like a gun that does 10-15% more damage than other guns), it actually breaks the game (like a gun with infinite ammo, or a gun that does 100% more damage). I don't know if anything here "breaks the game", but there's certainly "overpoweredness" in the sense of stuff that's clearly better than typical options.
What is "it" in the subject of this sentence anyway?
I'm leery of going into deep examples, because in my experience, people who've demanded such things tend to do one of two things when they are provided:
1) Walk away from the thread and never comment on it again (let alone acknowledging the often significant time and effort that goes into providing the examples and accompanying math).
2) Dismiss the examples with terms like "white room" (necessarily any example on a messageboard will be vulnerable to this, just as examples from real games are vulnerable to the issue that the player may be holding back or not very mechanically adept), or with very weak arguments (c.f. the "well you can kill the echo pretty easily stuff", where in fact the resources being used to kill the echo are potentially pretty huge - forcing an enemy to make a pointless attack is like having Stunning them for a turn).
I'm not saying "I refuse", I'd just like you to acknowledge that these are valid concerns. I've seen too many times when people (not always me) have provided detailed examples which have simply been ignored or dismissed unreasonably.
As for Healing Spirit being fixed "easily", maybe, but not everything can be fixed that easily.
I also note your original wording re: "bet" that they are balanced - have you actually looked at them? You haven't answered on that. I'm certainly not going to bother with this until you have looked at them (including all the spells).
No. If you think that's a requirement to seeing that something is obviously overpowered, then, I'm afraid I don't think agree and I don't think that's a reasonable position, and I've been vindicated in this viewpoint so many times in my lifetime that it's not even funny. Some flaws only emerge in actual play. Many others are obvious even without it. In my long experience, here, in video games, wargames, card games, and RPGs, It's far more often the case that something seems fine on paper, and is broken in practice, than vice-versa.
Some people will always claim that "Well in my game it's fine!", no matter how unbalanced or badly-designed something is. That's a fact, and it's something anyone who has discussed RPGs significantly will have seen. The interesting thing is that it's often true - but the reason it's typically is that the player is either restraining themselves voluntarily, or isn't capable of understanding how to leverage what the ability in question is. The perfect example is LF/QW, which people swear blind isn't an issue in their games, and again, I'm sure that's true, but as a point of the rules design, it is a problem.
The spells in particular are frequently better than other spells of the same level (not all of them), to a degree that says not "This wasn't tested at all", but rather seems like clear power creep, which to me undermines any suggestion of rigour.
Well, generally you should engage with something before you make an opinion on it, and if you haven't, don't be surprised when people don't take your opinion seriously.No. If you think that's a requirement to seeing that something is obviously overpowered, then, I'm afraid I don't think agree and I don't think that's a reasonable position, and I've been vindicated in this viewpoint so many times in my lifetime that it's not even funny. Some flaws only emerge in actual play. Many others are obvious even without it. In my long experience, here, in video games, wargames, card games, and RPGs, It's far more often the case that something seems fine on paper, and is broken in practice, than vice-versa.
Some people will always claim that "Well in my game it's fine!", no matter how unbalanced or badly-designed something is. That's a fact, and it's something anyone who has discussed RPGs significantly will have seen. The interesting thing is that it's often true - but the reason it's typically is that the player is either restraining themselves voluntarily, or isn't capable of understanding how to leverage what the ability in question is. The perfect example is LF/QW, which people swear blind isn't an issue in their games, and again, I'm sure that's true, but as a point of the rules design, it is a problem.
The spells in particular are frequently better than other spells of the same level (not all of them), to a degree that says not "This wasn't tested at all", but rather seems like clear power creep, which to me undermines any suggestion of rigour.
Just the ability to have your actual character stay behind cover while your infinitely re-summonable dupe makes ranged attacks and draws enemy fire can get ridiculous in many dungeon situations.
Overall, I think the Echo power of the Echo Knight edges out the Invoke Duplicity power of the Cleric of Trickery.
That said, I do something similar with a Cleric of Trickery. I run the perfect Illusion into the midst of a group of monsters and spam Word of Radiance and Toll the Bell. Unlike an Echo, the Illusion cannot be disrupted.
Some errors in your understanding of ID. It uses Channel divinity, so it can be done once per SHORT rest staring at second level, twice at 6th level, and eventually up to 3 times per short rest at high level.It doesn't "edge out" Invoke Duplicity. It destroys it by comparison. Invoke Duplicity is something a 3rd level Trickery cleric can do once per long rest, and it lasts a minute. The echo knight's duplicate can be summoned an infinite amount of times, as a bonus action, and lasts forever until destroyed (whereupon it can be re-summoned next round, as a bonus action).
I've read it, it's flavorful and not bad: but a Champion at the Level 3 gets expanded Crit range, which is extremely powerful, particularly as Bonus Attack starts coming online, and can be extremely powerful in the hands of, for example, a Two-weapon wielding Half-Orc.
They're comparable in utility.
I don't like the UI. I don't like how it can't compute my spell slots accurately (like counting cantrips against my prepared spells per day). The app is terrible and the functionality on desktop is questionable.
It is a strange beast, an online character builder that is somehow even worse than what we had a decade ago in 4e with DDI. It doesn't facilitate online play at all, so you still need a VTT, which already have built in character sheets that work better than D&D Beyond.
I can't see the point in it, unless it's some form of charity to give Wizards more money.
It doesn't "edge out" Invoke Duplicity. It destroys it by comparison. Invoke Duplicity is something a 3rd level Trickery cleric can do once per long rest, and it lasts a minute. The echo knight's duplicate can be summoned an infinite amount of times, as a bonus action, and lasts forever until destroyed (whereupon it can be re-summoned next round, as a bonus action).
It is a strange beast, an online character builder that is somehow even worse than what we had a decade ago in 4e with DDI. It doesn't facilitate online play at all, so you still need a VTT, which already have built in character sheets that work better than D&D Beyond.
To use Beyond for online play, you get the Beyond20 extension for Chrome, and the DM can then have it feed data in directly to Roll20. Like, I adjust my HP on beyond, it goes down on Roll20.
So you're not acknowledging the effort that goes into providing evidence that a class has issues, nor agreeing that you wouldn't just walk away or dismiss the evidence if I provided it? Ok, well it's clear that you aren't actually looking for reasoned criticism of the classes.
Also, you didn't answer any of my other questions, nor did you comment on the spells. You certainly cannot, in good faith, claim that the subclasses are "balanced" without looking at those spells. I admit you said you "bet" not that they "were" (I'm not going to put words in your mouth here), but I feel this is a bit of a silly position.
And no, critting on a 19/20 is not remotely as useful to an intelligent player as this is. I feel like you know this.
Real play examples, please, not theorycraft. After since years, I have yet to see any of these sorts of assertions about balance pan out in reality.
It's extremely powerful whether the player is intelligent or not: going from a 5% crit chance to 10% crit chance EVERY SINGLE TIME for a Fighter is simply gigantic, and honestly every other Fighter Subclass suffers compared to that power curve. That you would not acknowledge that is a large part of why I doubt your instinctual assessment of power levels.
Oh wow.
You literally dismissed a real-play account that they were overpowered, and now you're claiming you'll only take real-play accounts? Wow. Just wow. That is genuinely incredible and blatant hypocrisy, and really proves what I'm saying about people who "want examples" not actually wanting examples.
Otherwise you need to go back and accept that the real-play account given upthread is worth far more than your theory that they're "fine".
Wow though. Astonishing.
I'm well aware of the math, but you just said "real play examples only", and I can say from my real play experience that Champions is are not as possible to leverage as, say, Battlemasters, nor will they be as possible to leverage as this. Math is irrelevant to you, apparently, given you want "real play examples" though. Also, dude, you just said half-orc dual-wield champion was the way to go, and brother, that ain't so.
Casting aspersions on others when you've just said that is pretty funny.
Not hypocrisy, I literally don't see the post in question...?
My real play experience is that the Champion is the most effective character I've seen.
A Two-weapon Champion gets more attacks, hence more criticals. Half-Orcs get more hit dice every time they critical. It's not necessary for an effective Champion, but it is good synergy.
Oh. It's first post in the chain you responded to, the second post in the thread
Yes it's a lovely synergy, but don't be dissing my ability to know optimization stuff when you're literally describing a fairly middle-of-the-pack optimization as your example, is what I'm saying.You can a lot better than that with Champion.
Thing is, with "real play", I agree Champions reliably do good damage, but they can't leverage it. They can't create or manipulate situations to take advantage of that. They just have to keep trying to hit things and not get prevented from hitting things. My experience is that any class which has abilities that can be leveraged like the Echo Knight's very clearly can be (I can see so many times they would have been insanely killer in the adventure I'm playing most weekends), where smart play and good tactics can make them distinctly more powerful, is going to be extremely powerful, potentially dominating. I don't think Echo Knights are "broken OP", again to be clear, but I do think that they are really at the very top for Fighter subclasses (not in pure DPR, no Fighter subclass except maybe Brute has ever beaten 2H Champions at that AFAIK), but in terms of overall effectiveness, pulling enemy attacks off other targets to attempt to hit their ghost(s), getting enemies to blow AEs to try and deal with them, and so on, as well as doing solid DPR (likely with more opportunity for OAs, and more lockdown on the enemy back line), they're going to be ahead.
I'm not saying the Echo Knight isn't effective, it looks it, but my impression is that it is not more effective as such.
Flip that around and say "balanced" and "well-designed", and your statement is still true. People tend to think that the way something works for their table, is the way it works for everyone else's tables (or worse, the way it should work for everyone). Balanced or unbalanced, fun or not fun, etc. It's kind of pointless to argue about feelings and judgment calls like this. (And I'd try to avoid implying that my fellow readers aren't capable of understanding something.)Some people will always claim that "Well in my game it's fine!", no matter how unbalanced or badly-designed something is. That's a fact, and it's something anyone who has discussed RPGs significantly will have seen. The interesting thing is that it's often true - but the reason it's typically is that the player is either restraining themselves voluntarily, or isn't capable of understanding how to leverage what the ability in question is.