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: 9187052" data-attributes="member: 7030563">I never said that is a fact.  If I had evidence that showed it was, I would provide it.  No such evidence exists to my knowledge.I do hold myself to the same standard.  That is why don't go around saying balance is a bad thing.  I offer it as an opinion, not as a truth and I don't tell people things like "do some research" when they disagree with me.So Crawford explicitly said Warlock was falling behind .... so he explicitly said 5E is not balanced .... which is what I said!And 5E did greatly exceeded expectations.I also think this was specifically pact magic he was talking about and they tried to make Warlock a half caster to "fix" this and then undid those fixes in playtest 7.And yet they changed it back to the old unbalanced pact magic design in playtest 7!They changed it to better balance it and yet they still purposely later chose to undo those mechanics because they were unpopular.I would argue that, but regardles popularity and growing the player base are certainly design goals and 5E exceeded those goals by a lot.What do you think the design goals of 5E are if not popularity?You mean the "problem" that they purposely decided not to fix after saying it was a problem?I don't think these have been proven unpopular and to the contrary some of the changes in the early ONE playtest regarding smites and sneak attacks indicate that players like fistfuls of dice (or at least they tell WOTC they do).Are we saying the Sorcerer is weak and underpowered now?  Sorcerer is widely regarded as the second most powerful class after Wizard.Yet neither 3E or 5E are close to being balanced.  So again, they can say this but they either don't know how to balance the game or they are being untruthful.For my part I think I could balance fighters with Wizards in an afternoon with no playtesting.  It isn't rocket science.Sorcerers having too few spells is not a balance issue at all and giving them more spells unbalances the game more than it was before as they were already a very powerful class before they had more spells.This underscores my whole point - if you think the Sorcerer is better with more spells, then you think the game is better with the balance between the Sorcerer and most classes being made worse than it was before they made this change.To be clear, that doesn't prove that imbalance is good, but it does prove that things that unbalance the game can also make it better and by extension means that fixes to better balance the game will not necessarily make it better.But they can be team players without being balanced.  Heck they are team players without being balanced.Monks contribute heavily in the games I play, often more heavily than Wizards even though as a class they are not as powerful.</blockquote>

Verification