Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8763226" data-attributes="member: 6790260">1: I didn't say it was. It's a very well-balanced game, not perfect, because nothing is perfect.2: Demanding perfection is arguing in bad faith; characterizing another as demanding it is a strawman.I'm aware that's what the haters like to rag on, yes. Whether that was actually anywhere near as big a problem as people claim it was is a matter of furious and irresolvable debate, which almost always devolves into the "it wasn't popular enough so it isn't an example" response.I disagree. Much of 5e's imbalance comes from spells being free to do whatever the authors think spellcasters could want to do, while non-spellcasting characters (and even some partial casters) are unable to replicate even things that real people IRL can achieve, let alone what fantastical or mythic heroes like Hercules, Beowulf, Mwindo, or Liu Bu could achieve.Interesting. Why not? Those books are as much 4e as any others published for it. Their design expanded in some new (and unfortunately, somewhat underpowered) directions, but they're not somehow "less" 4e than any other part.Alternatives include: some of them disagree it is a defect; some agree but believe it can be papered over; some simply don't care; some agree and it will be enough to turn them off it; some think, like I do, that it was "accidentally on purpose," that is, done with intent but not trying to make an imbalanced game; etc.Heaven forbid we ever allow players to just have cool things without completing the Fantasy world Ninja Warrior Obstacle Course first...And my experience is exactly the reverse. Unoptimized characters in 5e die.Oh, you can be sure anyone you ask that question will dodge it or deny it without ever actually refuting it.Denying something which can be mathematically demonstrated does not actually cause it to cease to be. Much to my chagrin. If this were true it would make debt significantly easier to manage!There is a world of difference between "there is no imbalance in this" and "the imbalance present in this is not a problem." Which are you claiming?Are you going to demand that literal exact phrase? If so, the no, they have not used that phrase. But repeated UA articles, with analysis, talking about issues players are facing and what might be done to resolve them, is a pretty clear admission that....there are problems that need resolution. Are you truly intending to take us to task because WotC has never explicitly said, in theses exact words, "The ranger has problems"?It is absolutely not so. Again, just look at the Ranger UA. Or how WotC (foolishly) responded to the backlash against the original Storm Sorcerer. Originally, that subclass got bloodline spells known. People rightly said, "Hey! That's not cool. Shouldn't non-Storm Sorcerers get extra spells known too?" WotC responded, "Ah, we hear you loud and clear gamers! We'll take away those nasty bloodline spells you don't like!" And people were quite dismayed and frustrated because that was exactly the opposite of what people wanted. They wanted Dragon and Chaos Sorcerers to get their own bloodline spells, because Sorcerers are somewhat below part for full casters. (Still better than Fighters or Barbarians, mind, but the flaws are known.)Again, there is a difference between "there is imbalance but it isn't big enough for me to care" and "there isn't any imbalance at all." Which are you claiming?Presuming the question was asked in good faith, as stated there are two possible directions. One is, "Assume there is imbalance but not large enough to really matter. What can we say about the reasons people like it?" In which case, I would say that yes, they must either like it because of that minor imbalance, or despite it. The other is, "Assume there is no imbalance whatsoever. What can we say about the reasons people like it?" In which case, the answer becomes flipped on its head: players must either like it for its balance, or in spite of its balance. I would then, naturally, assert that that answer is not particularly informative because I have the math to back me up on several of the balance issues.And repeatedly denying a problem that can be mathematically demonstrated does not wish it away.</blockquote>

Verification