D&D (2024) WotC is right to avoid the word "edition."

[Parmandur]

But we're not even really talking about obtaining results from a study that uses AL as a sample, are we?

Exactly, we are talking about whether AL usage is a barometer of compatibility, which it clearly isn't, unless we want to claim that Volo's Guide to Monsters was incompatible with Xanathar's Guide to Everything (until it was).

 

[Reynard]

Well you can start with official content and not 3pp

I made a thread to talk about this specifically if you are interested.

 

[Aldarc]

The cynic in me says the call for a complex martial comes largely from those who would have their cake and eat it too; who want a character with all the capabilities of a full-on Fighter but which also has spells or other quasi-magical abilities baked in for those times when fighting isn't the best course of action. Think Gish, or Warlord, or Swordsage; that type of thing, only leaning a bit toward the warrior side.

In other words, a jack-of-all-trades character that is in fact a master-of-all-trades - the type of character that is the bane of party play as it has no real weaknesses for the rest of the party to shore up.

Because otherwise, there's really only so much complexity you can put into a hit-it-till-it-falls-over warrior archetype before you either make it not a warrior any more or you make it something better suited to a supers game.

How does the Warlord not lean into the Warrior side?

 

[Lanefan]

we are all in edition war mode... I admit it, but lets be honest you are effected by it too

I wouldn't say I'm in edition war mode; more I'm in the mode of "they're doing a new-ish edition of the game so now's the best opportunity to push - in whatever tiny way I can - for meaningful change toward a tougher, more warlike, dare I even say nastier style of game where the different characters all have significant weaknesses and thus need each other's strengths in order to survive, never mind thrive."

lol you mean a hexblade or a warrior cleric or bard, or the bladesinger.... you know the classes that are just that.

Yes, that sort of thing - classes that IMO while sometime fun and interesting in and of themselves maybe aren't necessarily good for the bigger picture.

again you are mistaken for "we want things as good as what others have" for "give us everything" but I can see how it's hard to see when the casters are pretty close to having it all

Then rein back the casters! As the design level there's many very easy means of doing this, if the designers had the gumption to dare try any:
--- make casting take time within a round, during which time the caster is defenseless
--- make casting extremely easy to interrupt (and get rid of combat casting in the process), any jostling or disturbance and your spell is lost
--- limit or even get rid of at-will cantrips
--- make magic dangerous and risky e.g. interrupted spells can go wild, casters have to roll to aim AoE spells and can much more easily clip their allies on a poor roll, etc.

And that's just a start.

The main balance point between warriors and casters at one time was that casters could only do their thing so many times a day, and in a quite restricted manner, where warriors could keep going all afternoon as long as they didn't run out of hit points.

look to 4e to manage to not be a super game, not be a non warrior... but still have options and power.

Not in edition war mode so not touching this with my handy 10' pole.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes, that sort of thing - classes that IMO while sometime fun and interesting in and of themselves maybe aren't necessarily good for the bigger picture.

as long as we have those class/subclasses I just can't take serious any push to no increase the fighter.

Then rein back the casters!

that is well beyond hope... maybe in 6e

The main balance point between warriors and casters at one time was that casters could only do their thing so many times a day, and in a quite restricted manner, where warriors could keep going all afternoon as long as they didn't run out of hit points.

but that has become less and less true each edition

Not in edition war mode so not touching this with my handy 10' pole.

 

[Lanefan]

but that has become less and less true each edition

My point exactly! It's a trend that IMO needs to be turned around 180 degrees.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My point exactly! It's a trend that IMO needs to be turned around 180 degrees.

I will 100% support 2e wizards with some 5e innovations (concentration, spell slot level up) as the 6e wizard... even with max at 20th level 12d4+10 hp

 

[Maxperson]

We know that it is a skewed sample, by definition. As @billd91 pointed out, that's the default assumption, particularly when talking about a fraction of a percent of the total population. But more importantly, we don't know how the sample skews!

All polls are a fraction of the total population. A Gallup poll is 1000 people with a margin of error of +/- 4%. That's for a population of 329 million. D&D only has a population of 50 million, yet you're saying a spread out sample size of multiple thousands is skewed an inaccurate.

But the main point is thatbAL rules are not a good measure of the game, because they are artifical and rigid by nature.

That much is true. AL doesn't play the game like most of the rest of us do, which does put things in doubt, not because of the number polled vs. population size.

 

[Reynard]

that is well beyond hope... maybe in 6e

You don't have to change the rules to rein in casters. You just have to follow them.

 

[Parmandur]

That much is true. AL doesn't play the game like most of the rest of us do

Right, which is the point.