D&D 5E You Cant Fix The Class Imbalances IMHO

Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
It's interesting that you say this. I'm not calling out WotC for wanting money or doing a new edition. I think that the 50th anniversary makes for a great time for a new set of books and a new edition. I think people have been talking about that for years. I think it really makes sense. I had expected there to be changes akin to previous editions with the goal of addressing some of the common complaints in the game. I really think it makes sense to put out a new edition that showcases where the game comes from along its long history.

I don't think the new edition comes from a dissatisfied customer base, but it can work in conjunction with it, to clean up issues that have come up. I think that the biggest problem we're experiencing with all of the playtests is how many people who are playing D&D right now are largely satisfied with the game, so when you survey ideas for changes, you're going to have a large part of responses that don't want any changes.

I'd say that most people who are playing 5E don't like something about it, but there isn't that magical consensus on what specifically needs to change. And that's the problem to my mind about relying on surveys to design with. I very much prefer the strong vision of a designer, even though it might make a game I'm not interested in. And I suppose that's exactly the reason the design is coming from survey results and not from the mind of a designer: 4E was a strong vision and quite different, and that split the hobby.
This is a business move. But they may also make some changes that are also popular and well received too.

I fault no business for making money…
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
So this is what did NOT happen:

Picture the board room…fat man in three piece suit enters breathlessly chewing a cigar…

“Call a meeting! Get everyone on the horn! Surveys are in and some of these game players don’t like the classes! We have got to get production moving!”

People start filing in the board room…

“Martials are not what people want! You hear me?! Class balance is all off! Fire this Crawford fellow! I want a proposal for a new edition on my desk by the end of the day! The end of the day damn it! You! Do something useful! I want a report showing how we are going to address these costly errors! We are going to make a new edition! We can’t fail if we fix this…unprofitable slop! Move!”

Or…

Same board room 5 years ago…

“So with this release schedule, we anticipate growth through the end of the fiscal year. As sales slow we will go ahead and have the design team in place at this stage of a draft…”
 
Last edited:

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/they)
It seems that way, especially if you don't look past the surface and take unpleasant assumptions with you.
In fairness, there are significant priors involved that make those assumptions strike one as a lot more likely.

Of course, those priors are all the more reason not to patronize the system or company in the first place, well before picking at some of the questionable design decisions found within.

And besides, the included rules for sexual slavery are way more objectionable than the Bladedancer.
 



Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
It's the fact that the creators explicitly disallow male characters from being Bladedancers, that they want only the fantasy of female cleric-esque warriors without armour to exist.
Actually, the Bladedancer is designed for the creator's home setting, but he has no problem allowing males to use the class in a different setting, or as a different organization. He's said as much, and I believe he says so in the new book.

Also, I don't believe that associating with an unpleasant person makes you unpleasant. I judge people by what they believe and what they do. And I judge a game by the game and not by what people say about the person who wrote it.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/they)
Also, I don't believe that associating with an unpleasant person makes you unpleasant. I judge people by what they believe and what they do. And I judge a game by the game and not by what people say about the person who wrote it.
That's certainly A Stance. And I think it's safe to say that all of us has some sort of a line where they're willing to set aside the creator's own unsavory actions for the benefits of their own. You could probably plot it on a graph, with the x-axis being the quality of the product and the y-axis being the heinousness of the creator's actions and beliefs. Everyone's a got a line. It could be almost flat or almost vertical for some folks. For many, I'd assume, there's some degree of an angle there. Maybe even a curve! But everyone's got a line.

When you learn that a creator, for instance, is known primarily for two things: getting in on the ground floor of Gamergate and getting in on the ground floor of Milo Yiannopolous, well, you've got decide where that places him on your own personal y-axis. And how high of a quality a product would have to be, if at all, to fall underneath your line.

Everyone's got a line.
 

Short for Adventurer Conqueror King System. An OSR game just getting its second edition via Kickstarter, which opened today and funded in less than 15 minutes. Emphasis is on a lot of modular systems and the re-introduction of the domain game, all of it meticulously researched and playtested. It is my absolute favorite RPG.

More details at the Kickstarter page:

Yesterday I didn't know ACKS II existed. Then I stumbled across a reddit thread, read a couple worked examples of the custom spell research rules, read some MM entries and likes how much non-combat-related stuff was in every entry. Long story short, I'm now $280 poorer and 1900 pages richer. 1400 pages of ACKS II--the PDF draft copies, since the final versions won't come out until next year--and 500 pages of a superhero game called Ascendant, a spiritual successor of sorts to both Marvel Superheroes/FASERIP and to DC Heroes with its logarithmic everything.
 

Actually, the Bladedancer is designed for the creator's home setting, but he has no problem allowing males to use the class in a different setting, or as a different organization. He's said as much, and I believe he says so in the new book.
Yeah, in an interview that I watched today he, Macriss, was talking about how things like the dwarven Forgewives or whatever they're called are inspired by antiquity, and how women were often treated quite poorly except for (my paraphrase of his example) a subset of women who were put on a pedestal, like the oracles of Delphi, who could give orders to kings. He said he thought it was interesting and so included it, but if you think it's more interesting to have Forgehusbands or whatever, go ahead.

That attitude seems completely reasonable.
 

If you can name me an edition other than 4e where the wizard wasn’t the strongest class at max level, I’d love to hear it.
In 2nd edition, the strongest characters at max level are multi- or dual-classed individuals. Single classed wizards are good but fragile, and not necessarily stronger than max level fighters or psionicists. It depends on a lot of factors including gear and campaign pacing/amount of downtime available.

There are psionic powers that are laughably weak, and others (Kinetic Control, Psychic Surgery, Empowerment + Convergence, Time Travel) that are on par with 9th level wizard spells and yet available to sufficiently-specialized mid-level psionicists.

And fighters get all the best magic items.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top