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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DinoInDisguise" data-source="post: 9449551" data-attributes="member: 7045806">The reason for this is pretty simple. The "deficiencies" are largely subjective. So from WotC's point of view, things worked beyond their expectations from 2014 to 2024. So what incentive did they have to address any "deficiencies" as defined by people on this forum?Some of the common complaints here are the specificity of the rules, essentially fixing the vagueness, adding more "crunch" or options,  and balance. All of these are subjective, not clearly an issue, or both.The vagueness and "crunch" aspects are the easiest to demonstrate, as those both have long discussions, recently, where even this forum was heavily divided.  So at best, it's a split in the community. At worse, the larger community has a more favorable opinion of that aspect than this forum does. It is unlikely this forum leans the opposite direction, as there are many people who actively dislike 5e, and don't play it, who love to talk about their issues with the system.And then we come to balance. Class balance is a nebulous issue. 2023 DnDbeyond usage, link below, shows that Figher, Rogue, and Barbarian top the charts. This points to either a lack of a functional balance issue, or a lack of caring by the community. But it's far from an overwhelming condemnation of the class balance. Ranger scored above Bard, Druid, and Sorcerer for instance. Funny enough, the ranger buffs in 2024 were not nearly what many hoped.You can look at the satisfaction with classes, and get slightly different numbers. But those are in line, mostly, with the classes that saw large changes - such as the aforementioned fighter. I'd have more specifics but I don't have this data in front of me. Further muddying the picture, in the playtest votes the objectively more balanced options for Druid got voted down by large margins. Again, this just muddies the picture for WotC.This all leads to the question than, of what deficiencies were so objectively there that WotC should fix? And what was the data that would support them finding the deficiency as real? The big one, that I could find, was CR, but they, supposedly, addressed that.So I agree. They didn't fix many because they don't see them as deficiencies or they don't believe their core audience cares. I don't think time changes either of those.Link: <a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1648-2023-unrolled-a-look-back-at-a-year-of-adventure" target="_blank">https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1648-2023-unrolled-a-look-back-at-a-year-of-adventure</a></blockquote>

Verification