D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Neonchameleon]

Old Spelljammer was derived from old scientific theory. I don't know what they were trying to do with the new stuff.

Psst! Neither do they!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Pretty sure that 3e reserve feats were the root of at-will cantrips.

They're not exactly at-will, when you use up the wrong prepped spell, they're gone.

The Warlock, getting at-will EB from 1st in 3.5, is a better candidate, if you can't bear the obvious parallel between 4e giving everyone at-wills from 1st level on, and 5e giving every full caster at-will cantrips, from level 1 on...

 

[cbwjm]

They're not exactly at-will, when you use up the wrong prepped spell, they're gone.

The Warlock, getting at-will EB from 1st in 3.5, is a better candidate, if you can't bear the obvious parallel between 4e giving everyone at-wills from 1st level on, and 5e giving every full caster at-will cantrips, from level 1 on...

That may be the case, but they still seem to me to be the precursor to at-will cantrips and I'm sure many spellcasters were quite capable of holding a spell ready to keep those reserve feats humming along.

 

[Scribe]

They're not exactly at-will, when you use up the wrong prepped spell, they're gone.

The Warlock, getting at-will EB from 1st in 3.5, is a better candidate, if you can't bear the obvious parallel between 4e giving everyone at-wills from 1st level on, and 5e giving every full caster at-will cantrips, from level 1 on...

OK, so its settled. The original sin of 4e has been established. Actually, that may be what they did to Tieflings...

 

[Umbran]

GSL Fiasco.
OGL Fiasco.

WOTC dreams of all fantasy adventure play going through them.

Neither of those fiascos says any such thing. Those fiascos were about controlling their own IP, not the universe of RPGs.

They haven't had the ability to claim all fantasy adventure going through them since Tunnels and Trolls came out in 1975. The barn door has been open for nearly half a century, and they know it. The worms do not go back into the can.

WotC is not perfect. They screw up. They misjudge. They've had and considered some policies I didn't/don't like. I expect some calls have gotten made by ignorant folks who didn't know much about the market. But mustache-twirling villains bent on world domination? No.

Heck, WotC isn't even a single entity with only one goal!

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK, so its settled. The original sin of 4e has been established. Actually, that may be what they did to Tieflings...

Clearly, it was letting fighters have nice things. Letting wizards have nice things is fine, 5e kept the at-wills for all full casters, afterall.

 

[Minigiant]

They're not exactly at-will, when you use up the wrong prepped spell, they're gone.

The Warlock, getting at-will EB from 1st in 3.5, is a better candidate, if you can't bear the obvious parallel between 4e giving everyone at-wills from 1st level on, and 5e giving every full caster at-will cantrips, from level 1 on...

4e was basically late stage 3.5e.

Basically "Popular NonPHB 3.5 classes + Popular NonPHB 3.5e Feats + Fixes for PHB 3.5e Abuses" the edition.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Perhaps those people also don't want the game to change for everyone to accommodate an issue they don't experience.

That's begging the question - you're starting from the assumption that fighters are "lacking". I don't make that assumption.

I'm okay with The Witcher which calls out magic as magic but Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon feels like the wrong visuals and approach for D&D. The game is flexible, but are still going to be limits.

3: We could add a new martial class balanced against the wizard, rather than balanced against the fighter (and then they still have their fighter, and if they think that fighter is weak then, well, it's still just as weak as previously compared to the wizard so there was no difference)

At this point, I think keeping all existing classes and adding new martial classes balanced against the Wizard is the right move. Create a new Warlord and Mythic Martial class in an optional splat book. Even say you need DM permission to play it if you want. Have these classes designed by people that want to play them and not influenced by the people that don't see the need for them, hate the concept, and will never play them anyway.

Yes, likely people like Oofta won't like these classes or their visuals, but the classes are optional and by definition not more powerful or versatile than the Wizard.

What's the objection?

The game won't "change for everyone to accommodate an issue they don't experience" unless
people end up mostly playing these new martials instead of the Fighter. But then that shows what people really wanted all along anyway? (either they prefer these new archetypes or the original Fighter was underpowered or both)

If some people play the new classes and some play the Battlemaster and Champion that's great too. More martial choice for those that want it. How would this change the game for everyone?

I just don't understand the resistance.

 

[Minigiant]

Neither of those fiascos says any such thing. Those fiascos were about controlling their own IP, not the universe of RPGs.

They were about controlling all aspects of the IP with that IP being the gathway.
That's through them.

You come into fantasy adventure gaming through D&D and they'd control all of D&D.
Meaning the 3PP who publishes the warlord or the gadgeteer or the treefolk or the exmen I want answers to them.

 

[Scribe]

Clearly, it was letting fighters have nice things. Letting wizards have nice things is fine, 5e kept the at-wills for all full casters, afterall.

Well, thats down to how 5e was designed, as we are all lamenting in the One D&D Forum (unless ones desires align with the 70%....)