Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="abirdcall" data-source="post: 7910013" data-attributes="member: 6748898">I guess where I differ is that I think most people can't tell what is optimal and what isn't beyond the basics like 2 is more than 1. Is A better than B though is a whole other problem. Like I said before, people can't even agree on what is better in a strategy game where people can actually win. I've had people swear up and down and construct detailed arguments about why they are right about a certain strategy while losing often.Another way of saying it is this - The power levels in 5e are close enough as to not be worth talking about. Where they are important is how they affect the fun of the game. I don't think the Purple Dragon Knight is fun because their abilities are not impactful enough to represent the flavour of the subclass.The Ranger Beastmaster is a great example of fun vs power and why they can't be separated in a game like this.The Beastmaster is powerful enough. It is quite good. It just 'feels' underpowered to people because it isn't what they want. The same thing happens to Assassins. They want autocrits but that isn't what the subclass does. The subclass grants advantage on winning initiative. The subclass also doesn't turn the game into a solo game for the Assassin (rightfully so) which is also something those players often want.</blockquote>