D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[Micah Sweet]

Because every time you do, they riot.

In official WotC 5e, that's true. This situation has not been and IMO will not be suitably addressed there. This is why I advocate for moving away from WotC and embracing 3pp solutions and/or homebrew.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Aesthetics.

People are trying to frame this thing as if it about some unhinged thirst for power or whatever, but what people want is for the classes to be more balanced so that they don't feel like sidekicks if they pick the "wrong" archetype. I retired my previous fighter because I got into some major sidekick territory and it sucked.

Here is a tip: Try talking more. Take a lead in decision making. Develop your character's relationships. D&D is a role playing game. What makes someone a sidekick is that they don't make the decisions, not that they don't blow up lots of stuff in combat.

 

[Cadence]

To be fair, there seem to be a good many players who don't want to play a supernatural character, fighter or otherwise. Many fantasy stories players may use as inspiration feature non-supernatural characters in fantasy settings (like the "bard" in the recent D&D movie). Are we saying here that such players should just take a hike?

Feels like it if they want to simultaneously have fighters that are:

(1) close to real-world-mundane,
and (2) balanced in capability with the other classes,
and also (3) have Wizards who reliably do all that 5e Wizards do including during combat
and (4) have the game involve physically fighting huge monsters that would crush anything close to real-world-mundane

... because those seem contradictory?

Simply substituting "in game world mundane" for "real-world mundane" feels like it makes it approachable, as would giving up the balance, or nerfing wizards.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is a claim that several people tend to make, but I do not recall this ever actually being the case. You make it seem like it was Wizard players that sounded the clarion call to people not accepting 4E-- like the game's failure was their fault because they didn't like the "balanced comparison" between the Wizard class and the Martial power source. But I don't think that is true at all.

ALL types of players did not like 4E. Not because the Martial and Arcane power sources were now more balanced to each other... but because the 4E game play itself and the focus of the grid-based combat game play was different than what players expected or wanted. There were plenty of people who LOVED playing Fighters who HATED playing 4E because of the way the game of 4E played. And the loss of so-called "Wizard power" had nothing to do with it.

And there were plenty of people who LOVED playing Fighters and finally loved that they were actually getting power.

We can duel these things all day. Nothing will change unless, y'know, we actually do something about it, rather than just pushing "status quo with grace notes."

Quite frankly... over the past 20 years I have heard MANY MORE "Wizard haters" constantly complaining about the power of Wizards than I ever heard of Wizard players "rioting" or even merely complaining that in 4E they were "less powerful".

Then, frankly, you haven't been paying attention. I know of no other way to say it. It was everywhere--even here.

And to be honest... if all of (general) you Wizard haters haven't rioted yourselves yet about Wizards being supposedly overpowered... it is quite a leap to state that is was the Wizard lovers are the ones who did.

Do you see people stating blatant, open lies about what 5e contains? Or 3e? Come back to me when you do. I'll be waiting.

It would be nice if some of these people who complain that fighters are not as powerful as wizards would just play a wizard already! My experience is that wizards are in short supply, but fighters are a dime a dozen.

I have--at least in BG3. They're extremely annoying to play, in part because:
1. You always know that you could simply be the continuous MVP if you just blew through all your spell slots and then long rested once you were out,
2. It's incredibly tedious to keep track of all the stuff you can do, but that's exactly what makes it so potent
3. Even if you enforce (as I do) the tabletop rule that you can only change your spells once at the start of each day, picking a smart handful of spells is almost always enough to get through literally every challenge you might face--combat, social, exploration, the works. Ritual spells are particularly potent in this regard.

I don't like playing Wizards because they're boring (and often tedious) if played well, and annoying if played while intentionally hobbling yourself. (Well, that and the class is objectively garbage at delivering on its class fantasy, but that's a whole different thread.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Here is a tip: Try talking more. Take a lead in decision making. Develop your character's relationships. D&D is a role playing game. What makes someone a sidekick is that they don't make the decisions, not that they don't blow up lots of stuff in combat.

When were Wizards prevented from doing those things?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The local village priest isn't trained in armor and mace, is granted divine magic or the ability to hold back the dread. The highwayman can't move triple his speed, dodge fireballs and disappear with ease. The scribe doesn't throw fire and lightning from his fingers and the town guard can't recover stamina and complete two actions in the time most take for one. They ARE superheroes; starting out as a Young Avenger/Teen Titan before moving up to the Avengers/JLA is part of the leveling process. The idea that D&D characters are at all mundane people hasn't been part of the design theory since the mid 90s.

While I find that very sad, it's worth noting that @Lanefan 's preferred D&D, as well as the preferred D&D of many others, isn't WotC 5e. Some of us think the design theory change you describe was a mistake.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

2. It's incredibly tedious to keep track of all the stuff you can do, but that's exactly what makes it so potent

Indeed. Wizards are DIFFICULT TO PLAY. That's your balance. They are extremely powerful - if you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules and a good grasp of tactics.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

When were Wizards prevented from doing those things?

They aren't. It's a level playing field. It doesn't matter how powerful your character is because D&D is about playing a role, not being the best.

The difference between the main character and a sidekick is that the main character makes the decisions, not that the main character is more powerful.

 

[Cadence]

Here is a tip: Try talking more. Take a lead in decision making. Develop your character's relationships. D&D is a role playing game. What makes someone a sidekick is that they don't make the decisions, not that they don't blow up lots of stuff in combat.

In the Marvel Comics Cap is a force even when you think he wouldn't be because he's a great leader, inspiration, and strategist and Thor and the other power-houses aren't. Is there anything in D&D that stops the wizard or cleric or druid or monk or barbarian or paladin from having the leadership, being inspirational, and being a great strategist?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do we really need yet another thread about how terrible fighters are? I get it. You don't like the way D&D works. Because that's what it really comes down to - you don't like the way the game that this forum is dedicated to is designed.

Perhaps core D&D simply isn't the game for you. There's only so much you can tweak and adjust before your mythical or "cool" fighter simply won't fit the game any more. Want a supernatural PC? You have a ton of options, we don't need yet another.

I like fighters as they are, and have and will likely play them again. We don't need yet another implicitly supernatural class.

Is this forum dedicated to WotC 5e?