D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

[Maxperson]

I don't know why they didn't just give it a second fighting style right at level 3? The critical thing is so underwhelming... And so is 'Remarkable Athlete'. It should have just been Reliable Talent but for Athletics and Acrobatics.

It could have been better, yes, but I like it as a subclass even as it is.

 

[Undrave]

This ain’t a logic class. It’s artistic aesthetics. It’s good if people like it. It’s like chocolate. This ain’t a mathematical formula that you derive to say it is good. It’s good if millions of people play it. That simple. I could understand maybe otherwise for a small indie company that doesn’t have the budget to advertise their products. But that’s not the case for d&d. Ad populum does not apply. Millions of people think chocolate is good. You are saying they are wrong because of ad populum. Really. Or are they just having badwrongfun or don’t understand the intellectual nuances of the game.

I frankly have no idea how people can look at the Champion and get excited about it. None of its features have any impact or zest, they're all boring and underwhelming (except maybe the second Fighting Style and 'Survivor' if you get there?!) and there is NOTHING in the fluff to make them stand out.

The only thing it has going for it is that it's free and is basically just a Fighter that sometimes gets better crit.

It's blander than white bread for pete sake! HOW are people excited for that thing?!

 

[ph0rk]

At least you're finally using it correctly.

I was using it correctly before - ad populum is the only argument one can really make in favor of the champion and I wanted it off the table. I don't see how you can argue that it is good without making an ad populum argument or claiming that class and subclass balance is irrelevant.

I think you're already inched towards the latter position, though.

 

[Sithlord]

I was using it correctly before - ad populum is the only argument one can really make in favor of the champion and I wanted it off the table. I don't see how you can argue that it is good without making an ad populum argument or claiming that class and subclass balance is irrelevant.

I think you're already inched towards the latter position, though.

Boring is a completely aesthetic descriptor. Popularity would be a good measurement that it is not boring. Players don’t come to a game to be bored.

 

[Undrave]

Boring is a completely aesthetic descriptor. Popularity would be a good measurement that it is not boring. Players don’t come to a game to be bored.

I guess it's not boring to people who don't find level 1 and 2 boring? I mean, the Champion is just the same thing as lv 1 and lv 2 but forever...

 

[ph0rk]

Popularity would be a good measurement that it is not boring.

Popularity is irrelevant when discussing power. Please scroll up and read the original text.

The champion is both bland and not that great at damage.

Arguing that it is not bland is one of those aesthetic arguments that is going to be rather easy to win and arguing that it is not bad at damage is an argument that isn't borne out by the math.

The only remaining claim is that it is popular, but being popular does not mean it is not bland (rather, I suspect it is popular because it is bland), and being popular does not somehow make it deal more damage relative to other available options.

None of the above provides it one whit of out of combat utility other than the very niche and situational remarkable athlete.


Re: Blandness:

Champion​

The archetypal Champion focuses on the development of raw physical power honed to deadly perfection. Those who model themselves on this archetype combine rigorous training with physical excellence to deal devastating blows.

That's it. That's the flavor text. That is plain white rice without salt. That could have been a description of the fighter base class.

 

[Maxperson]

I was using it correctly before - ad populum is the only argument one can really make in favor of the champion and I wanted it off the table.

1. You twice accused me using it when I never did.
2. It's not even close to being the only argument you can make in favor of the champion. Nice use of the False Dichotomy there. "Ad Populum" and "no argument in favor of the champion" are not the only two choices.
3. If you're going to accuse people of fallacies, get the fallacies right and don't use them yourself in the process.

I don't see how you can argue that it is good without making an ad populum argument or claiming that class and subclass balance is irrelevant.

"Good" and "bad" are in the eye of the beholder. They are subjective opinions and you have yours, and I have mine. You can use your subjective opinion to value damage output over everything else and then compare Champions to Barbarians(or whatever), but even if you can show an objective difference in damage output, and you can, it's still going to be nothing but a subjective position to say Barbarians are better, since you've based your criteria on what you FEEL is best(damage).

The thing with balance is that it's a pipe dream. It's utterly impossible to achieve in an RPG where you have different classes with different abilities. There will always be a "weakest" and a "strongest" at whatever criteria you are comparing. 5e got it right when it balanced the classes, since no class can dominate like they could in prior editions. The range of disparity is narrow enough not to matter to the game, but only to the personal opinions of those who play it. If it matters to you that the Champion doesn't deal as much damage as some other classes, don't play it. Don't assume that everyone else values things like you do, though. We can make our own decisions about what we value and whether the Champion is a good class or not.

 

[Maxperson]

Arguing that it is not bland is one of those aesthetic arguments that is going to be rather easy to win

Seeing as bland is in the eye of the beholder, you cannot win that argument against me, nor I can I win it against you. That's how subjective opinion works. As an example. My son loves non-flavored oatmeal plain. He just eats it and loves the taste. I can't stand the stuff as it's bland to me. Bland to me. Flavorful to him.

Edit: I'd love to see you show the math that shows the Champion being bad at damage. I don't think you can do it.

 

[ph0rk]

1. You twice accused me using it when I never did.

No, I didn't. I mentioned it to forestall its use. You know what it is, so you should know well that you hadn't used it but that it was the next lever to reach for.

If I was going to call you out on making a fallacy, I'd have flat out said it. That is fallacious, and thus a bad argument. I did not do that, I instead pointed out that a particular fallacious argument would be an unsuitable one.

"Good" and "bad" are in the eye of the beholder.

And it is here that you are now arguing that balance doesn't matter.

 

[ph0rk]

It is at once bland and bad at damage and not terribly useful (in terms of subclass features) out of combat. As a subclass it gives little in the way of roleplaying hooks, particularly few outside of combat, and is also not even that great at combat.

But it's "okay" because 5e isn't hard.

By that argument, spellcaster balance is "okay" because 5e isn't that hard. Yet, here we are, in a thread predicated on the idea that spellcasters probably aren't balanced all that well in 5e and that it is not okay.

If you can make an argument about why it is good without resorting to ad populum, I'd like to see it.

The full text of the original use. The last sentence is forestalling the fallacy I could see coming a mile away. If you had no plans to use it, it didn't apply to you - so why protest so much?