Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5503949" data-attributes="member: 2067">I think you overstate the delivery and the disappointment. There's still vast oceans of balance problems with classes (Warlocks are not as good at striking as rangers or rogues, forex, especially right out in PHB1). There's still a lot of contention about the power level of spellcasters and warriors, but very little of it has to do with some sort of "I AM NO LONGER GOD GGRRRR" childish spite, and much of it has to do with much subtler things like suspension of disbelief and flow of play, which are not balance problems. How so? The Slayer is one of the most powerful strikers in the game, and is fairly simple to trick out to maximum awesome, and it doesn't need any dailies to do it. Essentials is an evolution of designing classes that are more distinct and different than the PHB1-3 classes were. They are simpler, more distinct, and more evocative of the way older editions felt in play. The idea is to get a diversification, to make sure that different classes play differently, so that when I play a fighter I'm not just playing a paladin whose spells are fluffed differently. Fighters without dailies does not make fighters somehow weaker automatically. Slayers and knights and thieves and scouts can all contribute just as well as, and, actually, probably better than, any warlock, sorcerer, paladin, barbarian, or warden. Essentials also does not give spellcasters back the ability to scry-buff-teleport, fly indefinitely, or summon monsters that skew the action economy. Wizards are still firmly limited by the powers system to do things that are narrow and specific with their spells. I can grok that some folks want all characters to use the same power structure. But some folks do not like psionics, and some folks run only Tolkeinesque races, and some folks find warlords dumb, and some folks don't like "dark heroes," and ultimately not every item in every book will be for every player. One of the points Mearls made was that D&D needs to be for as many players as possible, which includes all of those people, frequently at the same table with people who love the thing they hate. Ideological purity in game design is useless for actually designing a game that the most people want to play. Making all folks use the same power structure is just going to limit your audience to people who are big fans of that power structure, while ignoring those who might want a little more variety, or a little more retro appeal, or a little simplicity....</blockquote>

Verification