Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8640841" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The major issue with this is just how minimalist early D&D demands things be. Hence my comment earlier. If Fighters need to be essentially empty of features, how do you match that in such a way that you don't make the new(er)-school options a straight 100% power-up, thus throwing all encounter math completely out the window.Alternatively, all the options on this front being outright crap at doing Warlord-like things kinda getting in the way? I mean, the four things Warlords were pretty good at were (a) actually being the main healer of a party, (b) dealing with negative conditions, and especially (c) handing out or enhancing attacks and (d) effectively repositioning allies. The Battle Master is kind of passable at exactly one of those things (repositioning). The Banneret, the one that's supposed to be specifically good at the first two things, generally sucks. And the franken-builds that let you kinda sorta do this set of things without magic are ugly and really, really slow to come online (e.g. you need to be at least 5th level just to START hitting the Warlord-esque feels).Thing is, a LOT of people like to characterize the above as "ah, yes, you're arguing in bad faith and would never, ever be happy unless 5e was just a reprint of 4e." It's not. It's asking for the things carried forward to, as you put it, actually keep enough of the spirit of the thing. I made <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-is-5e-like-4e.681629/post-8354225" target="_blank">rather a lengthy post</a> on the subject (and <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-is-5e-like-4e.681629/post-8355015" target="_blank">a later follow-up</a> taking a more holistic view, rather than an item-by-item one.) 5e "learned" from 4e mostly by mimicking the superficial color or concept of the latter and absolutely none of the spirit....which tends to get people rather annoyed as you might expect!Join the club. Sales aren't quality and never will be. If you stop conflating them, this argument will go away.Exactly. "Get out if you don't like it then" is not, at all, an argument in good faith.Because they almost certainly didn't use them so, or did so in only very limited ways. 5e's designers wasted more than half of their playtest period, easily 1.5-2 years, dithering about with fiddly random/unworkable stuff (e.g. Specialties) or repeatedly going back to the drawing board without letting designs breathe. Multiple classes never got any public playtesting at all for the mechanics they ended up using, because they appeared once and WotC got scared off, and you can see the weaknesses in the resulting classes (e.g. Sorcerer and Warlock). 5e is a game that spent about two years figuring out utterly basic stuff and then had to speedrun the final year to make sure things got published on time. It's honestly somewhat impressive that it came out with relatively few glaring faults (I'm looking at you, Beast Master), but if their playtesting had been more rigorous and serious and their schedule more...timely, shall we say, 5e could have done much better than it did in terms of legitimate modularity (and fixing preventable problems).Honestly, don't bother. For some folks, "it adds one subclass option" is going to be enough to be "modular," even though that looks legitimately nothing like the bill of goods we were sold.</blockquote>

Verification