Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Martials should just get free feats
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8971055" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Is D&D "in real life"? I honestly cannot believe you are making this argument.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Your arguments have done much the same. "X was more fun in its game than Y was in its game" absolutely has <em>no data whatsoever</em> to back it up, and can be refuted by what little data we actually have, including things like explicit statements from the developers themselves who recognized issues with how they implemented things.</p><p></p><p>We aren't getting anywhere by pointing fingers and making it personal.</p><p></p><p></p><p>BUT ALL CLASSES COST THE SAME IN D&D.</p><p></p><p>That's the point.</p><p></p><p>You have <em>one</em> menu. Everyone pays <em>exactly the same amount</em> to get something from that menu: one class (at least to start), one race, one background. Why should people who just happen to like wearing bathrobes and shouting weird words get great physical prowess <em>and</em> tons of special extra bonus rewards while people who like chainmail and weapons and physical fitness get just great physical prowess and <em>nothing else?</em></p><p></p><p>D&D presents its options as commensurate. Nowhere--not one single place--will say that Wizards are just objectively more powerful than Fighters. If you can present even one single quote from the books that explicitly says this, I will gladly and instantly surrender. But you won't find one, because it doesn't exist. Instead, we have mountains of examples of the designers themselves talking about things like adding Concentration to the game because casters could achieve too much with their spells in prior editions...aka...<em>casters were overpowered and needed to be rebalanced.</em> </p><p></p><p>Or, if we take a slightly wider scope, looking at things like the heartfelt appeal from Mr. Buhlman for people to give PF2e a chance, because the designers themselves had become painted into a corner, unable to fix any of the outstanding issues of the Pathfinder ruleset (all of which were inherited from 3e) without radical rules changes <em>because casters broke balance by being overpowered.</em> Or the rise of the "Spheres" rules (Spheres of Power/Might), which are now supplements for both PF1e and 5e, which were specifically an effort to give fun and exciting options to non-spellcaster characters (Spheres of Might) while forcing spellcasters to become more focused and thematic rather than the sprawling morass that standard PF spellcasting was. (The PF1e version came first, then was adapted for 5e later.) And Spheres rules are <em>incredibly</em> popular among PF1e fans--far and away the most requested alternate rules stuff for PF1e.</p><p></p><p>People like balance...when it serves a useful function. But to know that it serves a function, and agree that that function is useful, is a nontrivial thing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>What? Since when is liking "having martial skill and not using magic" equivalent to being absolutely 100% in love with the mechanical characteristics of the 5e Fighter as it exists?</p><p></p><p>For goodness' sake, we literally had a quarantine subforum for Warlord discussion in Ye Olden Dayse (dear God I can't believe that was almost a decade ago...) specifically because people <em>weren't</em> happy with the specific mechanics of Fighter but wanted the <em>thematic</em> content that, by design, <em>only</em> Fighters could represent.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8971055, member: 6790260"] Is D&D "in real life"? I honestly cannot believe you are making this argument. Your arguments have done much the same. "X was more fun in its game than Y was in its game" absolutely has [I]no data whatsoever[/I] to back it up, and can be refuted by what little data we actually have, including things like explicit statements from the developers themselves who recognized issues with how they implemented things. We aren't getting anywhere by pointing fingers and making it personal. BUT ALL CLASSES COST THE SAME IN D&D. That's the point. You have [I]one[/I] menu. Everyone pays [I]exactly the same amount[/I] to get something from that menu: one class (at least to start), one race, one background. Why should people who just happen to like wearing bathrobes and shouting weird words get great physical prowess [I]and[/I] tons of special extra bonus rewards while people who like chainmail and weapons and physical fitness get just great physical prowess and [I]nothing else?[/I] D&D presents its options as commensurate. Nowhere--not one single place--will say that Wizards are just objectively more powerful than Fighters. If you can present even one single quote from the books that explicitly says this, I will gladly and instantly surrender. But you won't find one, because it doesn't exist. Instead, we have mountains of examples of the designers themselves talking about things like adding Concentration to the game because casters could achieve too much with their spells in prior editions...aka...[I]casters were overpowered and needed to be rebalanced.[/I] Or, if we take a slightly wider scope, looking at things like the heartfelt appeal from Mr. Buhlman for people to give PF2e a chance, because the designers themselves had become painted into a corner, unable to fix any of the outstanding issues of the Pathfinder ruleset (all of which were inherited from 3e) without radical rules changes [I]because casters broke balance by being overpowered.[/I] Or the rise of the "Spheres" rules (Spheres of Power/Might), which are now supplements for both PF1e and 5e, which were specifically an effort to give fun and exciting options to non-spellcaster characters (Spheres of Might) while forcing spellcasters to become more focused and thematic rather than the sprawling morass that standard PF spellcasting was. (The PF1e version came first, then was adapted for 5e later.) And Spheres rules are [I]incredibly[/I] popular among PF1e fans--far and away the most requested alternate rules stuff for PF1e. People like balance...when it serves a useful function. But to know that it serves a function, and agree that that function is useful, is a nontrivial thing. What? Since when is liking "having martial skill and not using magic" equivalent to being absolutely 100% in love with the mechanical characteristics of the 5e Fighter as it exists? For goodness' sake, we literally had a quarantine subforum for Warlord discussion in Ye Olden Dayse (dear God I can't believe that was almost a decade ago...) specifically because people [I]weren't[/I] happy with the specific mechanics of Fighter but wanted the [I]thematic[/I] content that, by design, [I]only[/I] Fighters could represent. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Martials should just get free feats
Top