Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 7471712" data-attributes="member: 2629">Yes.&nbsp; You fix/address the heavy wounds...&nbsp; the wounds worthy of being addressed...Just like they did in 3.5, which was considered a major improvement in the play experience at the time.&nbsp; People, generally, loved it.&nbsp; However, 5E doesn't have as many imbalances to address as 3E did.If they introduce the revisions as options you can select - as in take what is in the PHB or gain this - well, we've seen it dozens of times already.&nbsp; No problem. Insert AL argument here, and note that the problem you just raised - about whether a DM and player will agree on including it - is much worse with ALand homebrew materials.Naturally decreased because those most offended are using the UA article ranger.&nbsp; Less people complain about leaky tires that are patched... but it is still just a patch. See my above argument.&nbsp; The play experience would be benefitted by an improvement to the class.&nbsp; If all your friends are jumping off a bridge, does it make the bride jump a good plan?But can we approve the play experience for this iconic class?While I do not agree with all of those statements (wild mage gets a lot of play in my campaigns - I have not seen metrics indicating it is less often used in other games) - Improving the play experience is a good idea when it can be improved. 3.5 was widely accepted as a massive improvement in the play experience.&nbsp; You could do it on a lesser path here by introducing new options and have a lot of happy players.And if that player has a better experience because the mechanics work better?&nbsp; WIN. It is an iconic class.&nbsp; Peopl want to play the iconic class.&nbsp; If they play it despite the mechanics, there is room for improvement.Almost as good as a barbarian with GWF ... only about 10 damage per strike less.And monsters move up to it and hit it?&nbsp; That is not overpowered.&nbsp; If you put that 7th level down on paper and compare it to a polearm fighter, a GWM barbarian, or a high defense paladin of similar level you'll find it inferior.&nbsp; And, quite frankly, a bit odd.&nbsp; Optimizers that believed it to be great might play it... but those are bad optimizers.&nbsp; I doubt anyone else - outside of a really silly player - would think two lances on a halfling makes a lot of sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jgsugden, post: 7471712, member: 2629"] Yes. You fix/address the heavy wounds... the wounds worthy of being addressed... Just like they did in 3.5, which was considered a major improvement in the play experience at the time. People, generally, loved it. However, 5E doesn't have as many imbalances to address as 3E did. If they introduce the revisions as options you can select - as in take what is in the PHB or gain this - well, we've seen it dozens of times already. No problem. Insert AL argument here, and note that the problem you just raised - about whether a DM and player will agree on including it - is much worse with ALand homebrew materials.Naturally decreased because those most offended are using the UA article ranger. Less people complain about leaky tires that are patched... but it is still just a patch. See my above argument. The play experience would be benefitted by an improvement to the class. If all your friends are jumping off a bridge, does it make the bride jump a good plan?But can we approve the play experience for this iconic class?While I do not agree with all of those statements (wild mage gets a lot of play in my campaigns - I have not seen metrics indicating it is less often used in other games) - Improving the play experience is a good idea when it can be improved. 3.5 was widely accepted as a massive improvement in the play experience. You could do it on a lesser path here by introducing new options and have a lot of happy players.And if that player has a better experience because the mechanics work better? WIN. It is an iconic class. Peopl want to play the iconic class. If they play it despite the mechanics, there is room for improvement. Almost as good as a barbarian with GWF ... only about 10 damage per strike less.And monsters move up to it and hit it? That is not overpowered. If you put that 7th level down on paper and compare it to a polearm fighter, a GWM barbarian, or a high defense paladin of similar level you'll find it inferior. And, quite frankly, a bit odd. Optimizers that believed it to be great might play it... but those are bad optimizers. I doubt anyone else - outside of a really silly player - would think two lances on a halfling makes a lot of sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification