D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[Warpiglet-7]

Do the problems with the Ranger and the desire for a non-magical ranger similarly not exist due to some people still playing Rangers?

Start a thread and ask.

This topic is this topic.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Start a thread and ask.

This topic is this topic.

I'm just wondering if the faulty data that 'proves' there's nothing wrong with the fighter is universal or just exists to target the fighter.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I'm just wondering if the faulty data that 'proves' there's nothing wrong with the fighter is universal or just exists to target the fighter.

Are rangers very popular and well liked?

I don’t know and have not played one.

Secondly I can’t “prove” the fighter is fine. I just have not seen data proving the converse.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't really care about popularity. The only relevant questions I can see are: is the system you're currently using addressing this issue in a way you can live with? And if not, what can you do at your table to deal with that? I don't see how anything else matters.

 

[Minigiant]

That wasn't necessarily true when the game was released, even if it's true now. You're judging 2014 by the environment of 2023. The past should never be judged by the standards of the present.

The problem was that the surveys in 2013 were never appropriate to the audience. A lot of people filled out surveys who never touched 5e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem was that the surveys in 2013 were never appropriate to the audience. A lot of people filled out surveys who never touched 5e.

What audience should they have been appropriate for? 4e had been functionally rejected. The scads of shiny new 5e players did not yet exist. WotC's target at the time had to be people who preferred pre-4e D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

It depends if you have data.

What kind of data will you not reject?

1. Do people not like fighters? Bring the goods.

Define ‘like fighters’.

2. Are they ineffectual? Bring the goods and show how it is per level/tier.

Define ineffectual.

If people say they are not as “powerful” at high levels I will just shrug. I say OK…I will have more to say on that after I play more high level games. We get to double digits often and want something new to try.

Doesn’t seem like a helpful attitude.

But this is more nuanced than nobody likes fighters.

Yes.

And that is separate from the power curve over tiers.

How do?

 

[Minigiant]

What audience should they have been appropriate for? 4e had been functionally rejected. The scads of shiny new 5e players did not yet exist. WotC's target at the time had to be people who preferred pre-4e D&D..

They overrepresented grognards. They required a very high satisfaction score for anything to be accepted and this allows a minority to dictate acceptance.

A minority of the audience held the target audience hostage.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They overrepresented grognards. They required a very high satisfaction score for anything to be accepted and this allows a minority to dictate acceptance.

A minority of the audience held the target audience hostage.

This is starting to get into conspiracy theory territory. There is no some ignored majority who is unsatisfied with the game, and they certainly are not held hostage by the grognards. The truth is that most people like the game just fine, they just want different things than you. (They also want different things than me.)

 

[FrogReaver]

They overrepresented grognards. They required a very high satisfaction score for anything to be accepted and this allows a minority to dictate acceptance.

A minority of the audience held the target audience hostage.

That doesn’t make any sense.

If the target audience isn’t satisfied then the grognards still don’t get what they want.