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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 9172680" data-attributes="member: 2629">Well, if people overwhelmingly used the wizard over the fighter on DnDbeyond... if the surveys taken by WotC of the wider populace revealed that people preferred the wizard to the fighter by a large margin ... if I was at tables and people were systemically not enjoying playing fighters because of the presence of a wizard...  You know, all the things we've been seeing that show the exact opposite.Think about why you asked that question.  The answer was obvious, but you didn't see it.  Why?  What put the blinders on?As an aside: If you go back to 2015 and 2016 you can find a bunch of threads on the problems created because parties do not have wizards and thus don't have any PCs with the Knowldge (Intelligence) skills at high levels, even.Inherently - that is a flawed premise.  If you're going to have differences, then they will inherently have things they do differently - and as discussed before - that means some designs will be better at some things than other designs.  Differences require disparity.  A rogue, for example, is generally set up to be better at stealth than a fighter.  If you play RAW, they generally are better than the wizard, too.  We do not want a basic wizard to be as good at close combat as a basic fighter.  You might develop specialization and twists to offset some of those discrepancies in thie highly tailored game, but generally speaking: It is absolutely desirable for classes to have different strengths and weaknesses.Do we want to fix every disparity?  No.  That breeds boring uniformity.  We celebrate differences.  So the question is: Do the different designs work.  Can you have fun playing them, and can they fill an important roll in a party.  And, as discussed before: That is absolutely true of all 5E classes.  Some subclasses are more troubling - and there are definitely things I would change about the fighter design to give it more exploration and social options... but those would be tweaks, not necessary redesigns.   Seriously: If you're experiencing tables where people can't enjoy playing a fighter because another player is playing a wizard: Consider that the play style of the wizard may be the issue there.  Why are we at the table?  To optimize?  Or to share an experience?  If you optimize a PC and play glory hog, that is not a problem with the game - that is a problem between players.  I've mentioned the solo kill of the dragon.  Do you know what the first things I did was?  I turned to the group of players (not in character) and apologized.  When they gave me the "no, its fine ... you were just being in character ... it is cool..." response I said, "No - it isn't cool.  I expected to do a good bunch on the initial strike, but I expected us all to get in there.  I am legit sorry.  I like the game to tell a good story and that kind of was a boring end to the adventure for most of you.  You were planning how you'd get in there and I took that from you.  I don't want to steal thunder - let's talk about it."In that same scenario, today, I'd approach that combat differently.  I would not go all in and plan for the alpha strike and gamble that we are undetected and win initiative.  I'd set us up so that if the dragon gets to go, we're in a more defensible situation.</blockquote>

Verification