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

[Maxperson]

what is it in concept you don't get?

Your concept is how you envision your character. If I envision it as someone who engages in all the Rogue class abilities, even while not being a rogue like Han Solo, that's still a concept.

pact of tomb

I don't know Pact of Tomb. I figured you were talking about the Pact of Tome, which involves a book. Pact of Tome involves getting powers from your patron, not the book. The book just serves as an intermediary vessel for a few of the powers that come from your patron. That's why when you lose it, your patron just gives you another one.

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

No it doesn't. The Wizard concept involves 1) not getting powers from a patron, unlike Pact of Tome or Tomb(if this exists), 2) the ability to add an unlimited number of new spells to your spellbook as you find them, unlike any Warlock subclass, 3) the ability to cast a hell of a lot more spells than a Warlock ever could, 4) does not involve magic being granted by a patron, unlike Warlocks, 5) being able to change your many more spells on a daily basis, unlike a Warlock.

You seem to be confusing the concept of "spellcaster" with the concept of "Wizard." They are different. The Warlock and Wizard can both fulfill the former, but not the latter.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

We rebelled in our first game. The DM was running for just me and my friend and tried to get BOTH of us to play a fighter. We looked at the Fighter, got excited by the Whirlwind attack, found out that was never going to happen and all we would be doing would be swinging a thing every round, and ended up with a rogue and a sorcerer respectively.

 

[Lanefan]

I've never met this particular beast in the wild.

I have, in numbers; and if given my druthers would often prefer to be one myself when I'm a player: as far as possible let me just roleplay my character and keep the mechanics out of my sight.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

well I never said things could not be fixed.

3.5 had eldritch blast as a class feature that did damage (almost) like rogue sneak attack so 1d6,2d6, ect (I don't know why they skipped a level so by 20 it was 9d6 instead of 10d6)

4e had hex be a class feture.

in 6e I would love for BOTH to be class features.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Good news!! Their level of involvement is well above zero, so no changes are needed! Aren't you happy now?

 

[Maxperson]

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'.

And others like me saying, go for it. You should get what you want, too. We get ignored though in the fight between your side and those who for some reason are too petty to want others to get theirs. I hit that with Psionics. I want a Psion, but a lot of people are too petty to want others to have something that they don't want.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Your concept is how you envision your character. If I envision it as someone who engages in all the Rogue class abilities, even while not being a rogue like Han Solo, that's still a concept.

and done... you literally are now argueing your concept is to play a class as written and as such no other class can be that class...

that isn't a concept that is the class you want.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Do you hear yourself?

I didn't say my experience. Only you are talking about feelings here. I have met and played with these people. It is not subjective that they exist. You dislike simple and feel like it ruins the class. Apples and oranges bud.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

We rebelled in our first game. The DM was running for just me and my friend and tried to get BOTH of us to play a fighter. We looked at the Fighter, got excited by the Whirlwind attack, found out that was never going to happen and all we would be doing would be swinging a thing every round, and ended up with a rogue and a sorcerer respectively.

my first RPG I played a tatooed undead hunter (it wasn't D&D) then I jumped into dming 2e. By the time I PCed my first D&D character I had played a few campaigns of Rifts, champions, Vampire, Star Wars d6 and DC Superhero D6, and had run 2 full campaigns up to the teens... so I am NOT a normal starting character.
I did play a cleric as my first PC though

 

[ehren37]

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

I'm doing it partly tongue in cheek, but numerically powered up Tasha's sidekick classes (expert, warrior, spell-caster) are how I'd model them.

 

[Lanefan]

and done... you literally are now argueing your concept is to play a class as written and as such no other class can be that class...

Well, ideally this should be the case: if you want to play a concept* then there will be a single class that matches that concept; and courtesy of niche protection no other class can be that class.

* - other than a concept of "I can do everything", which while great for solo play really doesn't fly in a party-based game.

 

[ehren37]

I didn't say my experience. Only you are talking about feelings here. I have met and played with these people. It is not subjective that they exist. You dislike simple and feel like it ruins the class. Apples and oranges bud.

Their opinions and experiences are all subjective. So is your interpretation of their experiences. Everything on here is subjective.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm doing it partly tongue in cheek, but numerically powered up Tasha's sidekick classes (expert, warrior, spell-caster) are how I'd model them.

I agree, I see no reason we can't have a Warrior, an Expert next to Fighter, Rogue and Warlord as martial heroes (and monk and barbarian depending on how you look at them)

 

[Lanefan]

my first RPG I played a tatooed undead hunter (it wasn't D&D) then I jumped into dming 2e. By the time I PCed my first D&D character I had played a few campaigns of Rifts, champions, Vampire, Star Wars d6 and DC Superhero D6, and had run 2 full campaigns up to the teens... so I am NOT a normal starting character.

Fair enough.

When I started (a long time ago!) my first few characters were in sequence: Ranger*, Fighter, Fighter, Fighter-MU*, and Ranger.

The second and third on that list - i.e. the two Fighters - are still active today.

* - pretty much one-hit wonders who didn't last very long.

I did play a cleric as my first PC though

 

[Undrave]

In my opinion, it might have been preferable to make this option be a completely separate framework, divorced from fighters (allowing fighters to be more complex in their base chasis). The (alt-)'Champion' could be a separate page, noted as being specifically for this subgroup of games. No multiclassing with other classes, so no issue about 1 level dips or the like. And then just eliminate all the toggles -- not even second wind and action surge or the like (probably still HD to spend, but that's about it). In their place, static effects and high numbers across the board -- D12 or even D20 hd, multiple good saves (maybe proficient in all of them), flat out immunities (no resistances, or chances to shake of or other fidgety methods) to some things (fear being a thematically good choice), decent # of skills if you want to give them some OOC value (but no '1/2 X, roundup'-like things like Jack of all Trades), and maybe some +1 hits/damage/AC at various points.

now this idea I like...

give them prof in the 4 most common saves, all weapons and armor, d12s for HD and the fighter # attacks a built in subclass so no choice a built in quisi fighting style +1 to hit with weapons, and reroll 1's on damage dice with weapons then the improved crit chance of the champion...

a fun 1e style fighter. but leaves fighter concepts free for more complexity

Let's call it the 'Prodigy', just someone born with natural strength and skill.

D12 HD, three saves (2 good ones, 1 bad one), all weapons and armor and a choice of 4 skills and 2 tools.

Then at level 1 you pick your talent:

Talent of Might: +1 to Weapon Damage, unarmed attacks do d6+STR+1 damage, improved crit range
Talent of Skill: 3 extra skills, 2 extra tools, 2 extra language, maybe a +1 when you use your proficiencies?
Talent of Resilience: +1 to AC, +2 HP per level, need 4 failed death saves to die
Talent of Speed: More base speed, gain a climb and swim speed, proficiency bonus to initiative.

Same attack/ASI progression as the Fighter, but in place of the 6th level ASI they just get proficiency in the last three saves and at regular intervals you gain one of the remaining talent.

How's that?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, ideally this should be the case: if you want to play a concept* then there will be a single class that matches that concept; and courtesy of niche protection no other class can be that class.

* - other than a concept of "I can do everything", which while great for solo play really doesn't fly in a party-based game.

except if your concept isn't the class features normally you can make them multi ways...

Is Gandalf an Aasimar Wizard, or a Varriant Human Bard, or a custum linage divine soul sorcerer?
Is Aragon a human ranger, a half elf fighter/rogue, a deva warlord?
even conan 'the barbarian' I would say could be a fighter/rogue (my personal choice), a barbarian, a hexblade, and I have even heard people argue monk (that one I think is a stretch)

I watch this guy on Youtube make pop culture characters all the time and he is funny and always doing weird builds.

"I grew up on the streets and learned to fend for myself" could be almost any class

"I was taken in by a wizard that saw a spark of magic in me and helped me learn to use it" could be artificer, bard, sorcerer, warlock, wizard

but as soon as my concept is non magic it locks down (in the above you may have noticed with aragorn and conan some overlap)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let's call it the 'Prodigy', just someone born with natural strength and skill.

D12 HD, three saves (2 good ones, 1 bad one), all weapons and armor and a choice of 4 skills and 2 tools.

Then at level 1 you pick your talent:

Talent of Might: +1 to Weapon Damage, unarmed attacks do d6+STR+1 damage, improved crit range
Talent of Skill: 3 extra skills, 2 extra tools, 2 extra language, maybe a +1 when you use your proficiencies?
Talent of Resilience: +1 to AC, +2 HP per level, need 4 failed death saves to die
Talent of Speed: More base speed, gain a climb and swim speed, proficiency bonus to initiative.

Same attack/ASI progression as the Fighter, but in place of the 6th level ASI they just get proficiency in the last three saves and at regular intervals you gain one of the remaining talent.

How's that?

I'm not the target audience but I like it

 

[Maxperson]

Their opinions and experiences are all subjective. So is your interpretation of their experiences. Everything on here is subjective.

No. My position is from asking them why they like Fighters and don't play spellcasters. Again, their existence is fact, unlike your opinion. If you feel like can prove that these people that I played with really don't exist, go for it. I welcome your effort.

 

[Undrave]

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 mean, the Banneret is outright awful, so I don't see that as a great loss. It seem to have been left behind as WotC continues to try to make us all forget the Sword Coast Adventure Guide was ever a thing not that I mind, mind you. The stuff in there aged poorly.

 

[ehren37]

No. My position is from asking them why they like Fighters and don't play spellcasters. Again, their existence is fact, unlike your opinion. If you feel like can prove that these people that I played with really don't exist, go for it. I welcome your effort.

Again you are assigning their statements as fact. Why the don't want to play a caster is subjective. Moreover, it might not even be accurate or have anything to do with the actual class. Maybe they had a bad day or a bad DM with a caster.

Regardless, you are giving them entire classes, while also ruining those class for people like myself nd also gatekeeping people who want a simple class to one flavor. You are claiming their experience with the 5E fighter is somehow objective, and saying mine isn't.