Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
You Cant Fix The Class Imbalances IMHO
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9171406" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Actual play number only tells the lesser half of the story. The recently revealed player satisfaction survey data clearly shows that people aren't happy. They still play the classes and subclasses, but they're dissatisfied.</p><p></p><p>That's a pretty clear rebuke to the idea that everything is fine, nothing to see here, no reason to change anything, move along.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It seems to me that only one of these two statements can be true.</p><p></p><p>Again, this implies that there should never be player dissatisfaction from the "weaker" classes/subclasses, so long as the concept still appears. WotC's actual player satisfaction data proves that (a) people do keep playing these options but (b) their player satisfaction rating is low, often <em>very</em> low, sometimes less than 50%. (IIRC, Champion was specifically 54%, which if you account for margins of error, that's effectively the same as "people dislike it about as much as they like it.") Unless you think WotC is conducting bad surveys with faulty data, I don't see how it is possible to hold the "players really don't care at all about effectiveness, only concept." They DO care about concept! If they didn't, we wouldn't see so many of these underpowered classes and subclasses. But they also do care <em>to at least some degree</em> about effectiveness, which is why they keep playing things they're unhappy with.</p><p></p><p>Because it is <em>complicated.</em> Because playing something is not identical to loving it. Because you can love specific <em>parts</em> of something while hating or just not really liking other parts. Because it is possible to <em>feel,</em> intuitively, that something isn't quite right without knowing what exactly is wrong.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I had not realized you were so keen on killing the game. Full TSR style play would do that. It is not in keeping with the expectations and interests of modern-era gamers. This style absolutely should continue to get support and <em>some</em> modern players love it just as some longtime vets do. But to make it the only properly supported style would kill D&D within five years. Murderhobo fantasy heistery where all that matters is the gold and every character that dies is instantly replaced with another cardboard cutout and PCs die every other session? Nope. Not gonna fly as fhe default experience. Doubly so if you try to bring back all the intentionally frustrating rules.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Then you are assuming that one of the most serious balance problems of both 3e and 5e isn't going to happen. You are starting from a very, very flawed assumption.</p><p></p><p>As long as people can do the 5MWD and get significant power from doing so, they will. This is a fact. People <em>will</em> do this. The only solutions are to get increasingly and story-warpingly draconian about how every problem somehow cannot let a single night pass without overwhelming cost but <em>can</em> allow multiple hour-long naps to pass with no issues whatsoever. (Seriously, why 5e couldn't have kept short rests at 5 minutes, or even 10-15, I will <em>never</em> understand; it would have been better for literally almost everyone, <em>especially</em> if Champions had actually gotten some kind of simple, straightforward benefits from taking a short rest.)</p><p></p><p>Unless and until you fix the 5MWD problem, all of this stuff remains. That's literally why 5.5e is moving to PB-per-LR dependency for most things, and why they tried to eliminate the uniqueness of the Warlock (something I'm very glad they reversed course on.) Because the 5MWD is alive and well in 5e.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I think they should have done the reverse and made <em>casters</em> more dependent (or, rather, dependent at all) on short rests. E.g. remove one spell slot from every spell level up to 5th level. Then make Arcane Recovery a thing every class can do twice a day, recovering slot-levels equal to half class level (summed across all regular spellcasting classes.) That way, spellcasters are now <em>dependent</em> on getting at least two short rests every day in order to exercise their full magical mojo; if they go two battles and then call it a day, they're only getting about 2/3 of their full potential.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9171406, member: 6790260"] Actual play number only tells the lesser half of the story. The recently revealed player satisfaction survey data clearly shows that people aren't happy. They still play the classes and subclasses, but they're dissatisfied. That's a pretty clear rebuke to the idea that everything is fine, nothing to see here, no reason to change anything, move along. It seems to me that only one of these two statements can be true. Again, this implies that there should never be player dissatisfaction from the "weaker" classes/subclasses, so long as the concept still appears. WotC's actual player satisfaction data proves that (a) people do keep playing these options but (b) their player satisfaction rating is low, often [I]very[/I] low, sometimes less than 50%. (IIRC, Champion was specifically 54%, which if you account for margins of error, that's effectively the same as "people dislike it about as much as they like it.") Unless you think WotC is conducting bad surveys with faulty data, I don't see how it is possible to hold the "players really don't care at all about effectiveness, only concept." They DO care about concept! If they didn't, we wouldn't see so many of these underpowered classes and subclasses. But they also do care [I]to at least some degree[/I] about effectiveness, which is why they keep playing things they're unhappy with. Because it is [I]complicated.[/I] Because playing something is not identical to loving it. Because you can love specific [I]parts[/I] of something while hating or just not really liking other parts. Because it is possible to [I]feel,[/I] intuitively, that something isn't quite right without knowing what exactly is wrong. I had not realized you were so keen on killing the game. Full TSR style play would do that. It is not in keeping with the expectations and interests of modern-era gamers. This style absolutely should continue to get support and [I]some[/I] modern players love it just as some longtime vets do. But to make it the only properly supported style would kill D&D within five years. Murderhobo fantasy heistery where all that matters is the gold and every character that dies is instantly replaced with another cardboard cutout and PCs die every other session? Nope. Not gonna fly as fhe default experience. Doubly so if you try to bring back all the intentionally frustrating rules. Then you are assuming that one of the most serious balance problems of both 3e and 5e isn't going to happen. You are starting from a very, very flawed assumption. As long as people can do the 5MWD and get significant power from doing so, they will. This is a fact. People [I]will[/I] do this. The only solutions are to get increasingly and story-warpingly draconian about how every problem somehow cannot let a single night pass without overwhelming cost but [I]can[/I] allow multiple hour-long naps to pass with no issues whatsoever. (Seriously, why 5e couldn't have kept short rests at 5 minutes, or even 10-15, I will [I]never[/I] understand; it would have been better for literally almost everyone, [I]especially[/I] if Champions had actually gotten some kind of simple, straightforward benefits from taking a short rest.) Unless and until you fix the 5MWD problem, all of this stuff remains. That's literally why 5.5e is moving to PB-per-LR dependency for most things, and why they tried to eliminate the uniqueness of the Warlock (something I'm very glad they reversed course on.) Because the 5MWD is alive and well in 5e. Personally, I think they should have done the reverse and made [I]casters[/I] more dependent (or, rather, dependent at all) on short rests. E.g. remove one spell slot from every spell level up to 5th level. Then make Arcane Recovery a thing every class can do twice a day, recovering slot-levels equal to half class level (summed across all regular spellcasting classes.) That way, spellcasters are now [I]dependent[/I] on getting at least two short rests every day in order to exercise their full magical mojo; if they go two battles and then call it a day, they're only getting about 2/3 of their full potential. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
You Cant Fix The Class Imbalances IMHO
Top