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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9169148" data-attributes="member: 7030563">This argument works both ways though.  People keep insisting there is a problem with the power disparity when there is no evidence that is broadly a concern for 5E players.I firmly believe (and admit it is a belief) that a weaker wizard will negatively impact most players experience, to include players who play fighters.I also firmly believe players will also be even more negatively impacted by changes that make the fighter class stronger.  This will severely hurt the game IMO because the fighter is already the most powerful of the non-casters, has powerful subclasses at its disposal and making fighters as a class even more powerful will essentially make those other classes, particularly Monk and Barbarian, less relevant or even irrelevant.I will admit those are beliefs, and I have no proof.  Those taking the opposite position - that we need to fix this gap for the fighter, rarely point out the subjective nature of their position or that there is no evidence fixing it would be good for the game.I also think those talking about the weakness of the Fighter vs the Wizard fail to consider subclasses and feats in that discussion when those things are a major part of the fighter class chassis and comparatively a less important part of the Wizard class chassis.  At a fundamental level it is not fair to compare a subclass-free fighter to a subclass-free wizard when much of the power for the fighter class comes from the subclass and that is part of the class design.  This is a problem if it happens in your game, but that problem is not in the fighter class, the problem is asking new players to play a fighter.  Players should play what they want to play thematically and giving a new player a fighter because it is perceived as being easy, or worse because "that is what the party needs" is the real problem here.New players should play what they want to play thematically and should be presented with an unbiased honest discussion of strengths and weaknesses of classes and subclasses to meeting that theme.  But when it comes to ease of play, I would say in general Warlocks and Barbarians are both easier to play than Fighters.  I would also say Rogues, Paladins, Rangers, Druids, Wizards and Clerics can be easier depending on the specific level, optional tashas rules that are used, and subclasses being considered.Things like Battlemasters, Rune Knights, Eldritch Knights, Psi Knights, Echo Knights and Arcane Archers are not simple or easy to play in the mid-levels (3-8) that make up the core of the game.  These are more complicated than most Wizards and Paladins and more complicated than some Clerics and Druids at those levels.  Combined those fighter subclasses also represent well over half the fighters I see played.The only two classes that I think are really pretty much regularly more complicated than fighters at late tier 1/tier 2 are Monks and Sorcerers.</blockquote>

Verification