D&D 5E What is balance to you, and why do you care (or don't)?

[Maxperson]

the DnD ranger is only a concept in DnD. The only reason it is still a class is tradition and not much else. If the Warlord is deemed a not wide enough concept for a full class, then why is 'Woodsy guy with a couple spells' a full class?

Who says the Warlord isn't wide enough for a full class? It hasn't been made yet, but that doesn't mean that it won't be. The Warlord is easily as wide and probably wider as a concept than an Artificer is.

 

[Maxperson]

Why do we need simple at all?

YOU don't. Others do.

The whole idea of 'simple' seems to be either patronizing new players and assuming they can't learn how to operate Rage, or appeasing people who say they don't want to engage with the game most of the time.

I'll ask you now. Who are you to decide what level of engagement is sufficient to play D&D?

 

[ehren37]

I'm sure you can show me objective proof that it "ruins the entire class." I'm positive that you aren't trying to pass off your personal opinions as something that should eliminate options for a bunch of players.

Back atcha chief. I'm sure you can point to objective data on the vast multitudes who need the fighter to be the designated training wheel class.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm not. What the Rogue class provides is also a concept. It performs what the "rogues"(Han Solo, Swashbucklers, etc.) you are conflating with the class, cannot provide.

what is it in concept you don't get?

False Equivalences are false. Name one that studies to get their spells from that book.

pact of tomb

Having a book is not at all the same as Wizard magic and doesn't allow them to be wizards.

it covers the same concept though even though it isn't called wizard

They still universally make a pact with patrons and it's the patron that gives them their powers.

and so?

So first, I said nothing about refluffing. Second, yes. It's impossible to refluff a Warlock into a Wizard, since no amount of refluffing the Warlock gets rid of the patron or the patron as the source of the Warlock's power, and no amount of refluffling allows the Warlock to learn spells from the book daily or add new ones to the book from scrolls, other spellbooks, etc.

whaat are you not getting?

 

[Lanefan]

Sidekick classes. Make a healer, thief, warrior, and mage. That way there's a "kid brother button masher" class in every flavor. When people want to learn the game, they can move on to a big boy class.

There has to be a way to say this that isn't quite so demeaning to those who don't want much complexity in their game mechanics.

And to those who are in it mainly for the roleplay side of things and doesn't give a fig about mechanics, what's your response?

If they don't they probably don't care that much about their effectiveness.

This assumes "effectiveness" is the be-all and end-all reason for playing a character.

News flash: it ain't.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Warlock's a caster, right?

No caster is simple to play straight out of the box.

you pick 3 cantrips... one is almost always eldritch blast. 9/10 of rounds you fire off your pew pew laser

 

[Vaalingrade]

Who are you to decide what level of engagement is sufficient to play D&D?

I feel like 'not zero' isn't a big ask.

 

[James Gasik]

Rangers have always been a weird class in D&D. They don't really have a flavor other than "fighter guy with survival skills with nature themed powers that isn't a Druid".

I mean, in 1e, he was meant to be Aragorn. In 2e and 3.0...he was kind of a joke, with his only saving grace being two weapon fighting and bonuses that only worked against certain enemy types.

3.5 gave him more skills, making him like a Rogue with a better BAB (among other things).

Mostly, and this is telling, 3.x's way to make Rangers better mostly came down to interesting Ranger spells.

The 4e Ranger was a dedicated damage dealer, compared to his warrior kin (Fighter and Paladin, who were defender classes).

The 5e Ranger...man I don't even know. The subclasses are wildly different and the base chassis is like, "stripped down Fighter with more ribbons".

 

[Lanefan]

I think we need to look at this not from the perspective of "I want to turn off my brain and attack" but "new player".

Also "player who is great at roleplay but isn't at all interested in game mechanics and would rather leave all that to the DM".

 

[ehren37]

There has to be a way to say this that isn't quite so demeaning to those who don't want much complexity in their game mechanics.

And to those who are in it mainly for the roleplay side of things and doesn't give a fig about mechanics, what's your response?

If someone doesnt want to deal with mechanics and doesn't care about effectiveness, what's the problem with a simple sidekick class again?

 

[Maxperson]

Back atcha chief. I'm sure you can point to objective data on the vast multitudes who need the fighter to be the designated training wheel class.

I and others here have played with people like that. That makes their existence an objective fact. You on the other hand have no such objectivity to your opinion. Further, I reject your Strawman of my position. I never claimed "vast multitudes" or "training wheel."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Why do we need simple at all? The whole idea of 'simple' seems to be either patronizing new players and assuming they can't learn how to operate Rage, or appeasing people who say they don't want to engage with the game most of the time.

if back in the 90's I was forced to play a 5e fighter champion or something like it well everyone else had more power more choice and more complexity there would be 1 less D&D player

 

[Undrave]

Who says the Warlord isn't wide enough for a full class? It hasn't been made yet, but that doesn't mean that it won't be. The Warlord is easily as wide and probably wider as a concept than an Artificer is.

Every time we bring up a possible 5e Warlord we get an entire Chorus of 'You got the Battlemaster' and 'What makes it different from a Fighter?', and 'It's just a Fighter subclass!' or, worse, 'You got the Purple Dragon Knight'.

 

[James Gasik]

Also "player who is great at roleplay but isn't at all interested in game mechanics and would rather leave all that to the DM".

I've never met this particular beast in the wild. Not that they don't exist, but I have no experience with them. Usually I have to contend with "great roleplayer who believes in making the worst character possible" (Guy and Dale, I'm sorry but it's true!) and "quiet guy who suffers from decision paralysis and takes 5 minutes to calculate whether he hit or not and how much damage he did" (Sorry Drew, if you see this!).

 

[James Gasik]

Every time we bring up a possible 5e Warlord we get an entire Chorus of 'You got the Battlemaster' and 'What makes it different from a Fighter?', and 'It's just a Fighter subclass!' or, worse, 'You got the Purple Dragon Knight'.

The last time I brought up the Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret in a thread as a proto-Warlord, I got told "I don't allow that subclass in my games". Martials aren't allowed to have heals (according to some)!

 

[ehren37]

I and others here have played with people like that. That makes their existence an objective fact. You on the other hand have no such objectivity to your opinion. Further, I reject your Strawman of my position. I never claimed "vast multitudes" or "training wheel."

"My experience is objective fact. Your experience is opinion"

Do you hear yourself?

 

[Lanefan]

Why do we need simple at all? The whole idea of 'simple' seems to be either patronizing new players and assuming they can't learn how to operate Rage, or appeasing people who say they don't want to engage with the game most of the time.

Engaging with the game does not always equate to engaging with the game's mechanics.

This is one way in which RPGs are different than pretty much any other type of game, in that unlike most games one can engage with and play an RPG perfectly well as a pure roleplayer without really needing to interface very much with the game's mechanics.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There has to be a way to say this that isn't quite so demeaning to those who don't want much complexity in their game mechanics.

100% agree I don't want them labled 'newb' or 'sidekick' or 'training wheels' at all

 

[ehren37]

you pick 3 cantrips... one is almost always eldritch blast. 9/10 of rounds you fire off your pew pew laser

Part of the problem is Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast aren't part of the class chassis.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The last time I brought up the Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret in a thread as a proto-Warlord, I got told "I don't allow that subclass in my games". Martials aren't allowed to have heals (according to some)!

i just got into an argument last week on these boards that Martial healing can never happen and I brought up second wind (not even with banneret) just I heal myself 1d10+x on command and it cause an outrage