Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7256053" data-attributes="member: 48965">No let's be honest here it was a dismissive comment to try and wave away the fact that you were wrong, and that Action Surge has out of combat uses.  So the complaint of one specific edition vs. the complaint that has followed the fighter across virtually all editions... not even sure how you're comparing them but uhm, ok. Wait so you're saying that the majority of people that play D&D enjoy playing a class that is not well designed for their needs when there are a ton of other classes (claimed by some to be arguably designed better) for them to choose from.  That's some convoluted logic right there...How does answering whether they cast spells or not speak to how well the class is designed?  The only thing you did logically is answer that specific question, I've yet to see you lay down the objective criteria for what a well designed class is, even though you're now claiming it's just a matter of applying logic (which because human beings are not vulcans I'm going to disagree with).  I've stated what I believe a well designed class is... one that meets (or exceeds since we are being pendantic now) the expectations of the majority of it's users... so how about you tell me how we measure well designed in an objective manner using logic to determine validity of design.  Lol... okay now your reasoning is that users of the fighter class have expectations that the class sucks... really?  New players (and yes by most yardsticks D&D 5e is bringing in alot of new players) expect the fighter class to suck without having any previous edition experience to draw from. That's your argument here, that D&D players choose to play a class they expect to suck.  C'mon man  talk about too improbable to merit mention...Look it's all well and good that you value those things in a class but that may not be what the majority feel is important and thus when judging if a class is designed well for them it isn't an objectively good trait for a class to be well designed... in fact it may not matter at all to them.You're missing the point... it's not something you can categorize objectively.  It's not that it's complex , it's that you can't even quantify it.  It's all well and good to claim popularity =/= good design... but when you can't articulate what does well it kind of makes your argument pointless since popularity is the only tangible metric we have to measure at that point.  And yet here we are after 3 or 4 posts where you disparage the assumption that the fighter is popular and thus well designed for it's users but have offered nothing concrete in how to determine whether a class is well designed or not.  So I'll ask directly... what are the objective measurements of a well designed class?  If you can't answer that well then the popularity the class has with D&D users seems to be evidence enough it's been designed well for their purposes.</blockquote>

Verification