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

[EzekielRaiden]

Tgey added it in 4E it wasn't part of the D&D experience and they forced it in.

Nope. Cleric has always been "Brother Bactine." That's why Life Cleric is the only Cleric option in the free rules. Come on, Zardnaar. You already know this. I know you do. You've had plenty of time to play 2e.

5E fighter is a lot more organic than 4E. Strength or dex and weapon styles later it onto the subclass you want.

You can 100% play a Str/Dex Fighter in 4e. Yes, it does benefit from options outside the PHB. This should not be a horrible black mark. That you are trying to enforce such a standard simply shows that you refuse to consider what 4e actually was--since it explicitly and officially had an "all books are core" design.

 

[Zardnaar]

So, what you're actually saying is, it's not that you can't do it, it's that it isn't bleeding-edge optimal to do it.

The exact same standard applies to 5e. It's sub-optimal for any class other than Rogue to dual-wield.

Fighters fine and out damage great weapon early on. Competitive 5-10 due to other benefits (skills, initives, better saves etc).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thise are D&Disms not 4Eisms.

Not everyone wants a fighter to be a strength based defender. That's your only option in 4E.

AD&D had weapon specialization, 3E had fests build your fighter how you want.

Can't really get around that 4E stripped those options away. Fighter is a defender and there's only strength based options in phb at least early on.

.........

So it's okay as long as it's something D&D might have done. But if 4e did it, it's totally unacceptable, a horrific assault on the very possibility of play.

Are you serious, Zardnaar? Is this actually the line in the sand you want to draw?

 

[Zardnaar]

Nope. Cleric has always been "Brother Bactine." That's why Life Cleric is the only Cleric option in the free rules. Come on, Zardnaar. You already know this. I know you do. You've had plenty of time to play 2e.


You can 100% play a Str/Dex Fighter in 4e. Yes, it does benefit from options outside the PHB. This should not be a horrible black mark. That you are trying to enforce such a standard simply shows that you refuse to consider what 4e actually was--since it explicitly and officially had an "all books are core" design.

I'm comparing phb to phb here not pay mire money one way ir another to unlock options 2E and 3E gave you in the PHB. And 5E.

Archers, dex based, strength based choice is yours in 1E,2E,3E,5E. What you prefer is subjective but it's right there in black and white.

 

[Vaalingrade]

5E fighter is a lot more organic than 4E.

Organic?

So three times to price and full of insect parts?

Sounds about right.

 

[Zardnaar]

.........

So it's okay as long as it's something D&D might have done. But if 4e did it, it's totally unacceptable, a horrific assault on the very possibility of play.

Are you serious, Zardnaar? Is this actually the line in the sand you want to draw?

People asked for an example of a straight jacket I gave it to them. It's right there in black and white.

4E is barely playable just using the first three nbooks is it? It's designed to extract more money out of you essentially microtransactions you have to pay more to get content other editions gave you in PHB.

That's not subjective either missing classes, races, all classes forced into rail roads that are relaxed later via DDI or buy more books.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm comparing phb to phb here not pay mire money one way ir another to unlock options 2E and 3E gave you in the PHB. And 5E.

Archers, dex based, strength based choice is yours in 1E,2E,3E,5E. What you prefer is subjective but it's right there in black and white.

If you want to play an archer, play a Ranger. That's what the class is for.

Again: You are inventing things convenient to you, using standards that are genuinely unfair without a qualm, and literally excusing the exact same things in older editions but calling them horrendous faults in 4e.

I should never have bothered discussing this with you.

 

[Zardnaar]

Organic?

So three times to price and full of insect parts?

Sounds about right.

You have more choices. Want a defender type cavalier with sentinel fear.
Want a striker type big weapon or ranged.

 

[Zardnaar]

If you want to play an archer, play a Ranger. That's what the class is for.

Again: You are inventing things convenient to you, using standards that are genuinely unfair without a qualm, and literally excusing the exact same things in older editions but calling them horrendous faults in 4e.

I should never have bothered discussing this with you.

In 3.5 we had archer bards, Rangers, rogues, scouts, fighters.

That's what 4E removed and 5E brought back.
People specifically requested a straight jacket example. That's it right there. Want an archer you're a Ranger.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have held off on starting a thread on this, but I hope that I can put this in without derailing the thread, as the OP came close to stating it outright:

There continue to be large numbers of threads, with hundreds upon hundreds of posts, trying to fix 5e class imbalances. I see brilliant new ideas” to spice up 5e combat due low challenge or boredom which borrow 4e innovations. I find it amusing that many of these solutions utilize concepts which were formative for 4e. Essentially, the way to fix WotC-era D&D is by making 4e.

Yep, there are quite a few people who believe that, and what I can't understand is why they won't just play 4e instead.