D&D 5E (2024) Weapon Mastery + Cunning Strike+ Battle Master

[doctorbadwolf]

Its worth questioning if some are just in denial about not actually wanting to play the game and if such people really need to be catered to.

No, it isn’t.

 

[Indaarys]

No, it isn’t.

For you.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

For you.

No, objectively.

It’s a “discussion” with no purpose other than to gatekeep.

 

[Indaarys]

No, objectively.

It’s a “discussion” with no purpose other than to gatekeep.

Acknowledging that people shouldn't be forcing themselves to play something they don't actually like (and as such shouldn't be forcing the game to change to the detriment of others) isn't gatekeeping.

One does not have to play DND, and they especially don't when they clearly don't like it. It is not gatekeeping to offer the practical advice to play something else.

And in context of what I said originally, I definitely isn't gatekeeping to suggest a means of playing the same game that isn't going to conflict with other players experiences.

That, after all, is the entire point of chasing after the simple class to begin with, so taking that goal to its logical conclusion, itd actually make more sense to designate a player as the Monsters because then you could set them up a bespoke experience thats as simple as it needs to be and sacrifices nothing on the altar of simplicity.

The problem with chasing the Fighter as the simple class is that its actually the Martials that are treated as the simple classes, and how Fighter itself is designed plays into why that is. This is part and parcel to why the martial/caster disparity is such a huge problem and it obviously is negatively affecting large swathes of the playerbase.

A better overall solution is to do escalating complexity for all classes rather than dumping piles of it at once with little to no consistent design philosophy. And if thats still too complex, theres my idea about the Monster Master.

And after a point, we need to face the reality that what some people are actually saying is that they don't want to play DND, and so making sweeping design changes so that those few players can change their minds on what they want to play just means you're trading off on who your audience even is.

A punk band might be inclined to go pop to sell more records, but punk fans aren't gatekeeping when that decision negatively affects their enjoyment of the bands efforts.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Acknowledging that people shouldn't be forcing themselves to play something they don't actually like (and as such shouldn't be forcing the game to change to the detriment of others) isn't gatekeeping.

One does not have to play DND, and they especially don't when they clearly don't like it. It is not gatekeeping to offer the practical advice to play something else.

And in context of what I said originally, I definitely isn't gatekeeping to suggest a means of playing the same game that isn't going to conflict with other players experiences.

That, after all, is the entire point of chasing after the simple class to begin with, so taking that goal to its logical conclusion, itd actually make more sense to designate a player as the Monsters because then you could set them up a bespoke experience thats as simple as it needs to be and sacrifices nothing on the altar of simplicity.

The problem with chasing the Fighter as the simple class is that its actually the Martials that are treated as the simple classes, and how Fighter itself is designed plays into why that is. This is part and parcel to why the martial/caster disparity is such a huge problem and it obviously is negatively affecting large swathes of the playerbase.

A better overall solution is to do escalating complexity for all classes rather than dumping piles of it at once with little to no consistent design philosophy. And if thats still too complex, theres my idea about the Monster Master.

And after a point, we need to face the reality that what some people are actually saying is that they don't want to play DND, and so making sweeping design changes so that those few players can change their minds on what they want to play just means you're trading off on who your audience even is.

A punk band might be inclined to go pop to sell more records, but punk fans aren't gatekeeping when that decision negatively affects their enjoyment of the bands efforts.

It is gatekeeping, because you’re telling people to go play soemthing else if their preferences don’t match what you personally want from the game.

 

[Horwath]

The warrior isn’t a core class.

it should be made.
or atleast be in DMG with same power level of "normal" classes for those that want simple design.

 

[Horwath]

It is gatekeeping, because you’re telling people to go play soemthing else if their preferences don’t match what you personally want from the game.

some gatekeeping is OK.
DND is not tic-tac-toe

 

[Indaarys]

It is gatekeeping, because you’re telling people to go play soemthing else if their preferences don’t match what you personally want from the game.

And Im sure telling people to suck it if they don't want the class concept they like to be forced into being the simplistic class that drags the entire game down is...not?

I at least suggested a way to compromise (by way of escalating complexity for all, and/or building a new role). I didn't just ignore what either side wants and called any dissent gatekeeping.

 

[Indaarys]

Being inclusive is desirable but not so much so that you circle back to be exclusive when you start ignoring the needs and desires of all those who don't want pidgeholed simplicity and don't want their game experience negatively affected by it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

it should be made.
or atleast be in DMG with same power level of "normal" classes for those that want simple design.

Or, a core class could be built to handle both playstyles.