D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[Oofta]

No. But of course, I'm the only one who gets accused of making ridiculous interpretations of straightforward statements.

I said what I meant. Tedium is not simply in the eye of the beholder. It is also something that can be 100% intended for design purposes. And guess what? D&D used to use it all the time. It has been continually shedding that tedium over time, because tedium is simply not an enjoyable way to design games. Doesn't mean the existing Wizard isn't still tedious! It's just less tedious than it was in ye olden dayse.

Call it whatever you will. "Busywork," hoops to jump through, whatever. Some people have a very high tolerance for it. Others have a very low tolerance. I'd say overall I'm just below median on that front. But to have a tolerance for something, there must be a something for you to tolerate.


As I've already told you, I tried.


Ah, but of course you carve out the "unless that's what they specialized in," though "specialization" requires no more than picking a reasonable subclass (Bladesinger is best, but Abjurer and Diviner are fine too) and, as I've already told you, 2-3 effective spells (mainly shield, but other stuff is also good.) It really takes the Wizard almost nothing to be highly effective in combat, and ritual spells enormously extend their capacity.

Also, Fighter DPR is actually worse than other classes unless you stick religiously to the encounters per day stuff. Which was literally an entire other thread topic, very recently. Doubly a problem if you do what 5e actually tells you to do and was designed to do, namely, throwing large numbers of "weaker" enemies at the party, which was (allegedly) one of the key reasons for implementing "bounded accuracy."

But a fighter can't multi-class to even the odds if it matters to them?

The Solasta video game is D&D based and, if you play mods, it tracks DPR. I played quit a few mods for a while using a mix of PC classes. Most damage is done by fighters, next was the paladin, wizard is typically third or fourth. Many modules let you rest quite frequently. Admittedly it only goes to 13th level, but most people will never play to that level anyway.

In my own games which, heaven forbid, I actually use the expected budget for monsters in a single day and play the game as designed, the fighter also comes out on top or close enough.

 

[Scribe]

One counterexample does not mean the pattern is false. People don't go into TTRPG design for the money.

Who cares? Lets assume you are correct and its not about the money, its about the love of the concept.

The fact that there is apparently (I dont know maybe there is I dont look because its irrelevant to me) no 'Mythical Fighter that is not Magic because reasons' says what then?

Its not commercial viable?
Its not even beloved enough to warrant someone taking the work day to bang out a draft?

Doesnt seem like its much of a draw then?

 

[CreamCloud0]

The fighter, rogue and barbarian have that, but thread after thread pops up with people wanting more than that. So if they want to be more than extraordinary, become supernatural. If the fighter is complaining that he can't fight a dragon because he cannot fly, he needs to learn to fly or accept his limitations.

we are told that these martial classes are extraordinary, but the mechanics fall short of the claim, we don't need or want to resort to supernatural explainations to justify having effective mechanics on these classes, we want the existing mechanics to match the class fantasies the martial classes present us with
-you don't need to fly when you can launch arrows to perforate the dragon's wings to bring it down or daze it with a throwing hammer to the face,
-you don't need to fly when you can throw your grapple rope around it's horn and literally drag the beast back to the ground with pure muscle,
-you don't need to fly when you can climb up the side of the mountain and leap off to grab it's tail and climb onto it's back,
-you don't need to fly if you can anger it enough that it wants to come attack you close up on the ground

 

[Reynard]

I want to play a weapon master like you see in movies and TV and That's not there.

There's no weapon master in pop culture that mindlessly attacks with no tactics or tricks. and you can say Battlemaster, but the attrition mechanic makes it so you're only that guy a few times and then you're back to the boring attack machine that NO fight choreographer would allow to be boarded, let alone shot. and the only way to get back to being the character you're meant to be is waiting and hour for no good reason.

And can we please STOP taking responsibility for design off the designers' shoulders?

So play a monk and call it a "fighter." That's what I am talking about: choose a character based on what you want to do in play, not what it is called or what it's fluff reads

 

[Reynard]

If it weren't the norm...this thread would not exist.

This thread is "DMs wouldn't allow my homebrew stuff" version 8.0.

You are the one who turned it into that discussion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure but like I said


It isn't a fighter subclass. It's a fighter rewrite.

You can use LU archetypes with WotC classes. I'm not see how your distinction matters.

 

[Reynard]

Sure but like I said


It isn't a fighter subclass. It's a fighter rewrite.

It's the solution you want but won't use because WotC did not do it?

 

[CreamCloud0]

But a fighter can't multi-class to even the odds if it matters to them?

if a fighter is multiclassing to even things up then isn't that inherently saying that the fighter by itself isn't enough?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, you're literally telling the people who are dissatisfied with the Champion that it's their fault for choosing to play Champion. What else am I supposed to think?


I didn't say that though. You said someone who kills a lot of people and controls a battlefield. That sounds like something a warrior should be doing to me!


The manual tells them that Champions are just as good as any other subclass and that Fighters should be Wizards' peers, equally valuable to whatever group they join. This is false.


I have. Repeatedly. It presents the Berserker and Champion (which WotC's own data shows are DEEPLY disliked despite being played--because play-rate does not directly correspond to satisfaction rating!) as being just as good as, say, Battle Master and Totem Warrior.

Show me where it tells the player that Champions are weaker than other subclasses! I would love it if 5e were actually honest about that sort of thing. It wouldn't be an improvement of game design, but it would at least be speaking honestly with the player.

Dissatisfaction is irrelevant to WotC unless it equates to lost sales.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. But of course, I'm the only one who gets accused of making ridiculous interpretations of straightforward statements.

I said what I meant. Tedium is not simply in the eye of the beholder. It is also something that can be 100% intended for design purposes. And guess what? D&D used to use it all the time. It has been continually shedding that tedium over time, because tedium is simply not an enjoyable way to design games. Doesn't mean the existing Wizard isn't still tedious! It's just less tedious than it was in ye olden dayse.

Call it whatever you will. "Busywork," hoops to jump through, whatever. Some people have a very high tolerance for it. Others have a very low tolerance. I'd say overall I'm just below median on that front. But to have a tolerance for something, there must be a something for you to tolerate.


As I've already told you, I tried.


Ah, but of course you carve out the "unless that's what they specialized in," though "specialization" requires no more than picking a reasonable subclass (Bladesinger is best, but Abjurer and Diviner are fine too) and, as I've already told you, 2-3 effective spells (mainly shield, but other stuff is also good.) It really takes the Wizard almost nothing to be highly effective in combat, and ritual spells enormously extend their capacity.

Also, Fighter DPR is actually worse than other classes unless you stick religiously to the encounters per day stuff. Which was literally an entire other thread topic, very recently. Doubly a problem if you do what 5e actually tells you to do and was designed to do, namely, throwing large numbers of "weaker" enemies at the party, which was (allegedly) one of the key reasons for implementing "bounded accuracy."

Then I'm afraid I'm back to, "I'm sorry you've had a bad experience".