I really tried to spend some time discussing the pitfalls of data. Rather than just holding it up as the immutable truth. I did try to warn people how to look at data, and what are the more reliable parts. This is why I pointed out that the subclass data was not really worth using, for example.
No data is perfect. And yes, some can even be completely misleading. But this is what we have. And if nothing else, it does indicate that there is a non-zero amount of people that actively play simple classes. And it might even be a disproportionately large number of people. That's all I was trying to say.
My whole point was that we can use the data we have for some guidance. That we should view it critically. And that there at plenty of people to take into consideration when making any changes.
Rather than run in the same circles for another 100 posts, maybe we can agree on a few basic things. And then we can work on actual solutions. Can everyone agree that these basic things are true?:
- Some people enjoy playing the fighter currently.
- Some people think it needs more (options, rules, power, anything) for them to enjoy playing it.
- Simplicity is enjoyable for some people.
- Complexity is enjoyable for some people.
- No one is wrong for having the opinions they do.
- Everyone should be respected.
- No one should be locked out of a class to make someone else happy.
- DnD is for everyone, and we should want to welcome as many players as possible.
If we can move past debating who's opinion is somehow more worthy, then maybe we can move the discussion into something that could yield real results.
Those options are "more used by martial classes" because martial classes don't have any choice. They have to try and wring maximum possible benefit from the bare handful of basic options presented to them for mundane combat because they're not allowed any other options. When a spellcaster also makes effective use of those options in addition to its "complicated" options, the martial is left in the dust.
That's what I was trying to state: if a wizard knows how to fight, it is better at fighting than a fighter. It is more able to win fights and achieve its objectives in combat than a fighter, because a wizard's profusion of options grants it vastly greater tactical flexibility. Until that is not the case, the system is borked and needs repair.
These are good points, and I think they highlight that one of the issues is an actual play vs. game design expectations. If we actually had 6-8 encounters per day, the wizard is going to have to be much more judicious about which spells they use when. If they keep using the big flashy stuff, they blow through everything by the end of fight No. 2 and are just spamming fire bolt in fight 3-8. At that point the fighter, who’s arm somehow never gets tired, would completely outclass the wizard. So maybe part of the problem is that wizards (and more complex classes generally) are over-resourced in actual play, because they are having about a third or fewer of the encounters per day as the game assumes.
That, I think should be one of the bigger design goals for 1D&D, is balancing characters around the 1-3 fights per day that people actually have. It might go a long way toward putting classes on more equal footing. As I think about it, though, that seems like a separate issue.
It seems odd to me that on different topics, people will say that WotC has to be open to all styles of play and that players should feel that they can play the type of character they want to play. But on this topic, some of the same people are like "NO!!! I don't care what style of play you find fun, only my kind matters." Like the topic of floating racial ASI's from Tasha's where some wanted fixed ASI's and others wanted the floating ASI because players should be able to play how they want without feeling restricted. But for some, it is flipflopped and the free-floating ASI crowd and player choice advocates are digging in their heels for no simple fighter, only complex fighters count because no one else's fun matters. Or vice versa.
Of the 12 classes in the PHB which ones are simple to play, and which are complex?
I'm serious. Which do you consider complex, and which are simple? Is the Fighter the only simple class? Is wizard the only complex class? Are they 50/50 simple/complex?
I really hadn't given it much thought. I don't see any of them as overly simple or overly complex. Simple or complex, they all can be played poorly.
And I really would like to see a Fighter with more options. At its core they should be the pinnacle of fighting prowess. But at the same time, I can see how having a spectrum of complexity among classes as an overall benefit for all styles of play.
I know this would never happen, but maybe it would be best if they added a 13th class and called it Battle Master, make it its own standalone class with their own subclasses so you basically have a "fighter" that is more complex and the standard Fighter leave as they are, maybe with some better scaling. I don't know what the Warlord was like, but would something like that be a good addition?
In the end, though, since this is the UA forum, all of these arguments could be a complete waste of time as we have no idea what the Warrior UA will bring. Maybe Fighters will be more complex and have unique abilities tied to how they use weapons, different effects when using B, P, S weapons, or Heavy, Versatile, Two-Handed, etc. Or maybe they will remain relatively untouched, but when the Mage group comes out, we find out that spells and spellcasters get the hammer taken to them and simplified and power throttled down. Who knows.
Absolutely. All of this could be moot when the next UA comes out.
I hadn't put much conscious thought into this either before these conversations. I know I instinctually understood it. And I definitely saw its effects on my players. But I didn't think of classifying the class options by complexity, or looking for solutions with sweeping changes. I just found ways to adapt.
I think all class Groups, now that we are using them, need a range of options. From the mechanically simple to the mechanically complex. So that everyone can fulfill their fantasy in the way they are comfortable. It is also important to note that complex mechanics does not automatically mean a more complex or interesting experience. And that very complex characters can be played with very simple mechanics. The level of complexity only fulfills one aspect of enjoyment, and is different for different people.
For Warriors, I would say that Fighters have the most potential for mechanical simplicity. Barbarians are close, but are limited by theme. Monks are incredibly complex. They probably meet almost all of the needs of players who want more decisions. They have movement options, battlefield control options, many combat maneuvers, resources to track, scaling power, new abilities almost every level, even exploration and social skills. They should be the perfect go-to choice for the people who want a complex martial. So why aren't they? I suspect it's because of their theme. You could easily re-skin a monk to be any kind of fighter you could imagine. But the default theme is difficult for people to overlook, just as it is with the barbarian. This is why you and I both suggested a 'Warlord' option for an advanced fighter, without the thematic constraints.
My personal opinion on this is that monk just isn’t as good as ‘HITTIN WITH MUH HITTIN STICK’ as Yurei put it. There are very few situations where anything other than stunning strike or flurry of blows will be used. And monks just don’t have enough ki points at low levels to make their stunning strike worth it - especially with three ability scores to balance (DEX, WIS, CON) and a measly d8 hit die (which you notice very quickly if trying to play on the frontline).
Especially since the disciplined martial artist niche can now be filled by fighter from level 1 with unarmed fighting style and flavour.
The issue, Xalthu, is that people are under the mistaken impression that the six to eight encounters thing is six to eight full-fledged Deadly fights and that spellcasters are puling weenies when they're outy of slots. The daily XP budget is the daily XP budget; it's not supposed to matter, game-wise, if you spend it on six to eight chump change random one-off encounters with cannon fodder or on one gigantic Deadly++ Big Boss encounter. Part of Being Good at Spellcaster is knowing how to use your resources judiciously. Yes, martial classes are better at dealing with nuisance cannon-fodder low level encounters because their Attack Actions are stronger than a spellcaster's cantrips. That doesn't matter.
Yeah, I said it - that doesn't matter. Cantrips are good enough for do-nothing nuisance encounters, and when an encounter is important enough to merit spell slots the spellcaster immediately comes into advantage again. Cantrips are not so weak that the caster is helpless without spell fuel, nor SHOULD casters be completely, utterly helpless if they're Out Of Spells. Vancian magic can suck eggs and die in the past where it belongs, even the pseudo-semi Vancian system we have right now is weird and bad when looked at through the lens of "Does this make sense compared to other systems without nearly fifty years of baggage?".
Spellcasters are either able to hold up just fine with their at-will resources and the aid of their party just like martials, or they have a serious edge over martials who do not have the option of expending resources or exerting themselves to deal with a tougher-than-normal encounter. Mira can always Firebolt or pull her daggers and shiv right there on the front line, but the paladin in her party can't cast Telekinesis, Wall of Force, True Seeing, Mind Blank, Mirage Arcane, Magnificent mansion, Blade of Disaster, or any of the other things Mira can do to mitigate a tough encounter or aid the party in accomplishing their objectives.
Rather than run in the same circles for another 100 posts, maybe we can agree on a few basic things. And then we can work on actual solutions. Can everyone agree that these basic things are true?:
- Some people enjoy playing the fighter currently.
- Some people think it needs more (options, rules, power, anything) for them to enjoy playing it.
- Simplicity is enjoyable for some people.
- Complexity is enjoyable for some people.
- No one is wrong for having the opinions they do.
- Everyone should be respected.
- No one should be locked out of a class to make someone else happy.
- DnD is for everyone, and we should want to welcome as many players as possible.
If we can move past debating who's opinion is somehow more worthy, then maybe we can move the discussion into something that could yield real results.
Note, because I can sense a lot of stress in this post: we aren't going to solve anything. Nothing we do in this thread will have the slightest impact on Wizards' eventual decision with regards to martial classes or the fighter. Our results are basically the enjoyment* of an Internet debate and possibly ideas for homebrew for our own tables. We can't fix the game, and frankly I'm damn glad fixing the game isn't really our job.
Ultimately, I think the encounters per day thing is a separate issue. It impacts this issue, because part of the rationale for limiting the impact of Fighter's abilities is that they can be used "all day," but really what we're looking for is not a balance of "power" (whatever you think that means) but of viable options on a round by round or fight by fight basis. Even if a table plays strictly to the idea of 6-8 encounters per day, Fighters don't get more interesting or unlock more options as other classes' resources dwindle, everyone just gets pulled down to their level. When the wizard runs out of spell slots and is reduced to "I use my cantrip," the Fighter is still standing there going "I hit it with my stick."
I would note that the lack of simple options in the magic space is just as much of a problem as the lack of complexity in the martial space; I have a player who likes barbarians. tried playing a cleric, and tended to get pretty grumpy about needing to make decisions about things like what is the best spell to cast (in the arcane space, people can just play blasterlocks).
Rather than run in the same circles for another 100 posts, maybe we can agree on a few basic things. And then we can work on actual solutions. Can everyone agree that these basic things are true?:
- Some people enjoy playing the fighter currently.
- Some people think it needs more (options, rules, power, anything) for them to enjoy playing it.
- Simplicity is enjoyable for some people.
- Complexity is enjoyable for some people.
- No one is wrong for having the opinions they do.
- Everyone should be respected.
- No one should be locked out of a class to make someone else happy.
- DnD is for everyone, and we should want to welcome as many players as possible.
If we can move past debating who's opinion is somehow more worthy, then maybe we can move the discussion into something that could yield real results.
Note, because I can sense a lot of stress in this post: we aren't going to solve anything. Nothing we do in this thread will have the slightest impact on Wizards' eventual decision with regards to martial classes or the fighter. Our results are basically the enjoyment* of an Internet debate and possibly ideas for homebrew for our own tables. We can't fix the game, and frankly I'm damn glad fixing the game isn't really our job.
I appreciate the concern and honesty. It's really closer to pure exhaustion than actual stress, most of the time. I was just hoping we could agree on some basic things and move on to the productive part of homebrewing ideas together. I really find no joy in running in circles and arguing to no end. (I know you put an asterisk by 'enjoyment' for a reason.) It is completely exhausting, and only drives wedges between people. People that I think could all be real friends because of our shared love of the game. If we ever had the chance...
Sure, WotC isn't going to scour the forums for rules to snatch up. But I was genuinely curious about the things people liked to see in their character options. I'm a 'Forever DM,' and a big fan of game design. These forums have opened my eyes to different styles of play and desires that I haven't seen before, even in all those years. And it's nice to see what people might want. And how we all interact with the game differently. I might learn something I could use to make my own group's experience better. I might reconsider the feedback I give in the surveys, to take other player's needs that I didn't previously know about into consideration. That's why I joined the forum. To talk about this playtest and see what other people thought.
I had considered making a new thread with a detailed poll to see what people were really looking for in a Fighter. Where we might find some common ground on mechanics and make some progress. I had some ideas to throw out and wanted to hear others. But it's probably best just to let this one go. For me anyways.
With much respect to everyone here, I hope you all get something you like in the next UA. And I hope we all get an exciting new edition of the game. I'll see you in the next thread to pop up. :)
If the fighter is doing the same thing as the wizard then there is no "wow" at all everyone can do the same thing because they are all balanced. If the classes are balanced then there is no such thing as classes, every class is just a reskined version of another class, that is what made it "same-y".
Balanced does not mean everyone does the same thing. It's the easiest way of balancing, but by no means the only one. 4e's theory of balance is "no-one can do ridiculous stuff". What I want is "everyone can do ridiculous stuff, but not the same ridiculous stuff". What you want is "some people can do ridiculous stuff, while other people are stuck being boring".
In a game where math and dice are the underlying mechanics, perfect balance would be everyond doing the EXACT same things. 4E was not perfect but it was pretty close to perfect balance and it sucked because all people could do ridiculous stiff. If you think 4E characters are underpowered you could easily add 2 dice to every single ability/power/spell in 4E and then everyone would be "doing ridiculous stuff" in a balanced fashion and it would still suck. Doing "ridicuous stuff" does not make the game less "boring", especially when it is there for a token reason like "balance" as opposed to a thematic one that is important to the story elements of a character ..... This argument is: I need to do "ridiculous stuff" even though "ridiculous stuff" make sense for this character class thematically, however we need it in there because it makes sense for "ridiculous stuff" to be part of that other character class and we need this class to have it to keep up.
Absolutely I want "some people can do rediculous (i.e. magic) suff" and other people can't but EVERYONE at the table can play what they want to play. If you need to do "rediculous stuff" play a class that does "rediculous stuff" if you want to play a class that is "stuck being boring" then play a class that is "stuck being boring" ..... problem solved
What you want to do is force every single class to have to be capable of "ridiculous stuff".
Finally I have never seen a shortage of people wanting to play a fighter. I have been at many tables where no one wanted to play a Wizard or Sorcerer and even more where no one wanted to play a healer, but very few where no one wanted to play a fighter and none where no one wanted to play a martial. So, I would suggest this indicates one of two things:
I have played every single version of D&D, Star Frontiers, Gamma World, Top Secret and Pathfinder 1E and 2E
So... you've played lots of D&D (the only system there that isn't a D&D variant is Top Secret, and even that was published by TSR), nor is any of them especially flexible.
Star Frontiers and the original Gamma World are not d&d variants either. Moreover D&D is BY FAR the most successful RPG, eclipsing probably every other RPG combined. If flexibility, as you are describing it, is a positive I don't think that would be the case.
Modern D&D is far, far more flexible than Basic or 1E was. Maybe it is not as flexible as other games you have played, but I think it is a good place. Given its popularity I would suggest that most players think that way too.
The most flexible game systems tend to separate effect and description -- if you want to blow up a bunch of mooks, you just acquire the "blow up a bunch of mooks" power, and it's up to you whether this is casting a fireball, or leaping into the midst of them and chopping through them all with lightning attacks, or calling in a strike from an orbital laser platform.
Yeah that sounds like 4E to me and it sounds not fun.
Ecmo, what Pantagruel means is that those systems use the same engine as D&D and closely mirror its structure, simply modified to some degree to account for a new genre. Truly different systems are often far more flexible in character concept/generation than D&D, which forces people down some very narrow, highly constrained pathways. Now those other games pay elsewhere, or rather D&D does buy some advantages with its narrow and highly restrictive class system, but you cannot say D&D has more flexible character generation than Savage Worlds, Genesys, or GURPS.
Or, well, I suppose you can say whatever you like, but you'll be objectively wrong in this particular instance.
Ecmo, what Pantagruel means is that those systems use the same engine as D&D and closely mirror its structure, simply modified to some degree to account for a new genre. Truly different systems are often far more flexible in character concept/generation than D&D, which forces people down some very narrow, highly constrained pathways. Now those other games pay elsewhere, or rather D&D does buy some advantages with its narrow and highly restrictive class system, but you cannot say D&D has more flexible character generation than Savage Worlds, Genesys, or GURPS.
The original Star Frontiers and the original Gamma World do not use the same engine as D&D (which was at the time 1E and Red Box). This was way before the d20 system, it was the d20 system that brought those on to a common engine in later editions. Star Frontiers only uses 10-sided dice (like Top Secret) and was WAY different than D&D. Gamma world is closer to D&D, especially the 3-18 ability scores, but the combat systems are not similar.
I did not say D&D has more flexible character generation than those you mention. It is more popular than they are though.
The only think I said is 5E is more flexible than older editions.
Modern D&D is far, far more flexible than Basic or 1E was. Maybe it is not as flexible as other games you have played, but I think it is a good place. Given its popularity I would suggest that most players think that way too.
I was not attempting to address what is the right amount of flexibility in a system, I was addressing whether D&D is objectively flexible. The evidence is (a) it isn't, and (b) most players don't especially care.
Modern D&D is far, far more flexible than Basic or 1E was. Maybe it is not as flexible as other games you have played, but I think it is a good place. Given its popularity I would suggest that most players think that way too.
I was not attempting to address what is the right amount of flexibility in a system, I was addressing whether D&D is objectively flexible. The evidence is (a) it isn't, and (b) most players don't especially care.
Well I have been playing extensively for 7 years and I still have many character ideas I have yet to play or seen someone else play, and frankly they come out with new subclasses faster than I can keep up and that is with 3-4 ongoing weekly games and 2 long-term games going on. There are thousands of viable and effective combinations of race-class-subclasses, there are millions of vibable combinations if your table allows multiclassing and that is not considering further variation from background and feats.
That makes the game objectively flexible IMO. Perhaps not as flexible as other games, I don't know I have never played them. But IME character variation in 5E is objectively flexible on its own.
The BoLS article was more of a secondary source than a primary one. It helped reinforce the data from Game Rant, and numerous other sources, but here are more sources that say basically the exact same thing:
D&D Beyond Video (this is the DDB Dev Update that gives some of the data Game Rant uses)
Not only that, but I challenge you to find a single source that directly contradicts this data. Anyways, yes, people do toy around with the builder to create builds that they don't actually play. But that actually skews the data slightly in favor of more complex concepts, since making a character isn't as complex as actually playing them and people are more likely to toy around with using the character builder (which simplifies the character creation process) than they are to play the character, especially since the character builder doesn't make those abilities any less complex to use.
Anyways, data from digital tools that are designed to make complex classes -- and the game overall -- simpler are always going to have more people playing those complex classes than they would if they did not have the tools that made those classes easier to play. Due to this, the data from DDB (because yes, that is where this data is from) which clearly indicates that much more people prefer simplicity to complexity will not be fully representative of how much more people prefer that. If we are looking at the way the vast majority of D&D players still play, on the table with dice and a hand drawn character sheet, then I think it will clearly show that even more players like simplicity, and less like complexity when compared to DDB's data that already found that the latter is much preferred.
The Game Rant article that we were discussing came out in August 2020, so that was months after COVID had started shaking things up. Yes, that is a bit before Tasha's came out, but I doubt that one supplement book, however popular, will shake up the statistics of class popularity that have been consistently saying Fighter is the most popular class book after book and year after year. So this data may be a tad bit old, but it is still an excellent information source and all the newer data I've found has just backed it up.
I don't think DDB explains how they got this data, because they really don't have to. They almost certainly have access to every character that is made here, and I think it seems pretty obvious that they just looked at all the characters and did the percentages for each class and checked. Yes, this does raise a couple problems, but all these problems really do is just make it look like there are more characters than there are not. And they have a handy-dandy tool to see what parties are like which is almost certainly how we have the data about it, that tool is called campaigns. Unless you think DDB decided to maliciously get data in the least optimal ways, then I'm pretty sure we know basically the only logical way they could get it.
And no, "party composition tropes" don't mess with this data because they say you need both a Fighty martial, and a complex magic dude. So it balances out.
TL;DR: This data is universally echoed by numerous sources, and running through all the possibilities, it seems very sound overall. But sure, keep trying to discredit it despite the fact that it's results are clear, and by and large, they are accurate too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
You want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster, and you want martial classes to be the exclusive purview of brand new players. We. Get. It. The people who ACTUALLY work with data in their day-to-day don't know anything about data, the DDB materials are absolutely 100% laws-of-physics level true, and we should just outright eliminate the warlock, the wizard, the artificer, and the druid from the game because Simple is Best and anyone who wants more from the game than HITTIN' STICK is not only objectively wrong but also actively malicious and likely criminally liable for something.
Holy goddamn moosecracker banana ****whistles, why am I still here?
You want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster, and you want martial classes to be the exclusive purview of brand new players. We. Get. It.
No not at all. We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want. Most of the gamers I play with are not new, some of them have 40+ years experience with D&D like I do and plenty of them, me included, play fighters.
You want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster, and you want martial classes to be the exclusive purview of brand new players. We. Get. It. The people who ACTUALLY work with data in their day-to-day don't know anything about data, the DDB materials are absolutely 100% laws-of-physics level true, and we should just outright eliminate the warlock, the wizard, the artificer, and the druid from the game because Simple is Best and anyone who wants more from the game than HITTIN' STICK is not only objectively wrong but also actively malicious and likely criminally liable for something.
Holy goddamn moosecracker banana ****whistles, why am I still here?
If that is what you think I want, then you really don't "get it". I don't "want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster," all I want is for you to not rip the simplicity out of Fighter. You can literally have all the complexity you want in any other class.
We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want.
These two statements are incompatible.
No they aren't. You can still play the "simple" Fighter complexly via feats, backgrounds, and subclasses. On the other hand, a new player can't play any class they want if you've made half the classes so complicated that it takes years for someone just to understand the basics of how they work.
I really tried to spend some time discussing the pitfalls of data. Rather than just holding it up as the immutable truth. I did try to warn people how to look at data, and what are the more reliable parts. This is why I pointed out that the subclass data was not really worth using, for example.
No data is perfect. And yes, some can even be completely misleading. But this is what we have. And if nothing else, it does indicate that there is a non-zero amount of people that actively play simple classes. And it might even be a disproportionately large number of people. That's all I was trying to say.
My whole point was that we can use the data we have for some guidance. That we should view it critically. And that there at plenty of people to take into consideration when making any changes.
Rather than run in the same circles for another 100 posts, maybe we can agree on a few basic things. And then we can work on actual solutions. Can everyone agree that these basic things are true?:
- Some people enjoy playing the fighter currently.
- Some people think it needs more (options, rules, power, anything) for them to enjoy playing it.
- Simplicity is enjoyable for some people.
- Complexity is enjoyable for some people.
- No one is wrong for having the opinions they do.
- Everyone should be respected.
- No one should be locked out of a class to make someone else happy.
- DnD is for everyone, and we should want to welcome as many players as possible.
If we can move past debating who's opinion is somehow more worthy, then maybe we can move the discussion into something that could yield real results.
These are good points, and I think they highlight that one of the issues is an actual play vs. game design expectations.
If we actually had 6-8 encounters per day, the wizard is going to have to be much more judicious about which spells they use when. If they keep using the big flashy stuff, they blow through everything by the end of fight No. 2 and are just spamming fire bolt in fight 3-8. At that point the fighter, who’s arm somehow never gets tired, would completely outclass the wizard.
So maybe part of the problem is that wizards (and more complex classes generally) are over-resourced in actual play, because they are having about a third or fewer of the encounters per day as the game assumes.
That, I think should be one of the bigger design goals for 1D&D, is balancing characters around the 1-3 fights per day that people actually have. It might go a long way toward putting classes on more equal footing.
As I think about it, though, that seems like a separate issue.
My personal opinion on this is that monk just isn’t as good as ‘HITTIN WITH MUH HITTIN STICK’ as Yurei put it. There are very few situations where anything other than stunning strike or flurry of blows will be used. And monks just don’t have enough ki points at low levels to make their stunning strike worth it - especially with three ability scores to balance (DEX, WIS, CON) and a measly d8 hit die (which you notice very quickly if trying to play on the frontline).
Especially since the disciplined martial artist niche can now be filled by fighter from level 1 with unarmed fighting style and flavour.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
The issue, Xalthu, is that people are under the mistaken impression that the six to eight encounters thing is six to eight full-fledged Deadly fights and that spellcasters are puling weenies when they're outy of slots. The daily XP budget is the daily XP budget; it's not supposed to matter, game-wise, if you spend it on six to eight chump change random one-off encounters with cannon fodder or on one gigantic Deadly++ Big Boss encounter. Part of Being Good at Spellcaster is knowing how to use your resources judiciously. Yes, martial classes are better at dealing with nuisance cannon-fodder low level encounters because their Attack Actions are stronger than a spellcaster's cantrips. That doesn't matter.
Yeah, I said it - that doesn't matter. Cantrips are good enough for do-nothing nuisance encounters, and when an encounter is important enough to merit spell slots the spellcaster immediately comes into advantage again. Cantrips are not so weak that the caster is helpless without spell fuel, nor SHOULD casters be completely, utterly helpless if they're Out Of Spells. Vancian magic can suck eggs and die in the past where it belongs, even the pseudo-semi Vancian system we have right now is weird and bad when looked at through the lens of "Does this make sense compared to other systems without nearly fifty years of baggage?".
Spellcasters are either able to hold up just fine with their at-will resources and the aid of their party just like martials, or they have a serious edge over martials who do not have the option of expending resources or exerting themselves to deal with a tougher-than-normal encounter. Mira can always Firebolt or pull her daggers and shiv right there on the front line, but the paladin in her party can't cast Telekinesis, Wall of Force, True Seeing, Mind Blank, Mirage Arcane, Magnificent mansion, Blade of Disaster, or any of the other things Mira can do to mitigate a tough encounter or aid the party in accomplishing their objectives.
Please do not contact or message me.
Note, because I can sense a lot of stress in this post: we aren't going to solve anything. Nothing we do in this thread will have the slightest impact on Wizards' eventual decision with regards to martial classes or the fighter. Our results are basically the enjoyment* of an Internet debate and possibly ideas for homebrew for our own tables. We can't fix the game, and frankly I'm damn glad fixing the game isn't really our job.
Please do not contact or message me.
Ultimately, I think the encounters per day thing is a separate issue. It impacts this issue, because part of the rationale for limiting the impact of Fighter's abilities is that they can be used "all day," but really what we're looking for is not a balance of "power" (whatever you think that means) but of viable options on a round by round or fight by fight basis. Even if a table plays strictly to the idea of 6-8 encounters per day, Fighters don't get more interesting or unlock more options as other classes' resources dwindle, everyone just gets pulled down to their level. When the wizard runs out of spell slots and is reduced to "I use my cantrip," the Fighter is still standing there going "I hit it with my stick."
I would note that the lack of simple options in the magic space is just as much of a problem as the lack of complexity in the martial space; I have a player who likes barbarians. tried playing a cleric, and tended to get pretty grumpy about needing to make decisions about things like what is the best spell to cast (in the arcane space, people can just play blasterlocks).
I appreciate the concern and honesty. It's really closer to pure exhaustion than actual stress, most of the time. I was just hoping we could agree on some basic things and move on to the productive part of homebrewing ideas together. I really find no joy in running in circles and arguing to no end. (I know you put an asterisk by 'enjoyment' for a reason.) It is completely exhausting, and only drives wedges between people. People that I think could all be real friends because of our shared love of the game. If we ever had the chance...
Sure, WotC isn't going to scour the forums for rules to snatch up. But I was genuinely curious about the things people liked to see in their character options. I'm a 'Forever DM,' and a big fan of game design. These forums have opened my eyes to different styles of play and desires that I haven't seen before, even in all those years. And it's nice to see what people might want. And how we all interact with the game differently. I might learn something I could use to make my own group's experience better. I might reconsider the feedback I give in the surveys, to take other player's needs that I didn't previously know about into consideration. That's why I joined the forum. To talk about this playtest and see what other people thought.
I had considered making a new thread with a detailed poll to see what people were really looking for in a Fighter. Where we might find some common ground on mechanics and make some progress. I had some ideas to throw out and wanted to hear others. But it's probably best just to let this one go. For me anyways.
With much respect to everyone here, I hope you all get something you like in the next UA. And I hope we all get an exciting new edition of the game. I'll see you in the next thread to pop up. :)
In a game where math and dice are the underlying mechanics, perfect balance would be everyond doing the EXACT same things. 4E was not perfect but it was pretty close to perfect balance and it sucked because all people could do ridiculous stiff. If you think 4E characters are underpowered you could easily add 2 dice to every single ability/power/spell in 4E and then everyone would be "doing ridiculous stuff" in a balanced fashion and it would still suck. Doing "ridicuous stuff" does not make the game less "boring", especially when it is there for a token reason like "balance" as opposed to a thematic one that is important to the story elements of a character ..... This argument is: I need to do "ridiculous stuff" even though "ridiculous stuff" make sense for this character class thematically, however we need it in there because it makes sense for "ridiculous stuff" to be part of that other character class and we need this class to have it to keep up.
Absolutely I want "some people can do rediculous (i.e. magic) suff" and other people can't but EVERYONE at the table can play what they want to play. If you need to do "rediculous stuff" play a class that does "rediculous stuff" if you want to play a class that is "stuck being boring" then play a class that is "stuck being boring" ..... problem solved
What you want to do is force every single class to have to be capable of "ridiculous stuff".
Finally I have never seen a shortage of people wanting to play a fighter. I have been at many tables where no one wanted to play a Wizard or Sorcerer and even more where no one wanted to play a healer, but very few where no one wanted to play a fighter and none where no one wanted to play a martial. So, I would suggest this indicates one of two things:
1. Many players do not consider a fighter boring
OR
2. Many players want to play boring.
Star Frontiers and the original Gamma World are not d&d variants either. Moreover D&D is BY FAR the most successful RPG, eclipsing probably every other RPG combined. If flexibility, as you are describing it, is a positive I don't think that would be the case.
Modern D&D is far, far more flexible than Basic or 1E was. Maybe it is not as flexible as other games you have played, but I think it is a good place. Given its popularity I would suggest that most players think that way too.
Yeah that sounds like 4E to me and it sounds not fun.
Ecmo, what Pantagruel means is that those systems use the same engine as D&D and closely mirror its structure, simply modified to some degree to account for a new genre. Truly different systems are often far more flexible in character concept/generation than D&D, which forces people down some very narrow, highly constrained pathways. Now those other games pay elsewhere, or rather D&D does buy some advantages with its narrow and highly restrictive class system, but you cannot say D&D has more flexible character generation than Savage Worlds, Genesys, or GURPS.
Or, well, I suppose you can say whatever you like, but you'll be objectively wrong in this particular instance.
Please do not contact or message me.
The original Star Frontiers and the original Gamma World do not use the same engine as D&D (which was at the time 1E and Red Box). This was way before the d20 system, it was the d20 system that brought those on to a common engine in later editions. Star Frontiers only uses 10-sided dice (like Top Secret) and was WAY different than D&D. Gamma world is closer to D&D, especially the 3-18 ability scores, but the combat systems are not similar.
I did not say D&D has more flexible character generation than those you mention. It is more popular than they are though.
The only think I said is 5E is more flexible than older editions.
I was not attempting to address what is the right amount of flexibility in a system, I was addressing whether D&D is objectively flexible. The evidence is (a) it isn't, and (b) most players don't especially care.
Well I have been playing extensively for 7 years and I still have many character ideas I have yet to play or seen someone else play, and frankly they come out with new subclasses faster than I can keep up and that is with 3-4 ongoing weekly games and 2 long-term games going on. There are thousands of viable and effective combinations of race-class-subclasses, there are millions of vibable combinations if your table allows multiclassing and that is not considering further variation from background and feats.
That makes the game objectively flexible IMO. Perhaps not as flexible as other games, I don't know I have never played them. But IME character variation in 5E is objectively flexible on its own.
Flexible is not "there are many options". Flexible is "If I come up with a concept (without reference to the game system), I can play it".
The BoLS article was more of a secondary source than a primary one. It helped reinforce the data from Game Rant, and numerous other sources, but here are more sources that say basically the exact same thing:
Not only that, but I challenge you to find a single source that directly contradicts this data. Anyways, yes, people do toy around with the builder to create builds that they don't actually play. But that actually skews the data slightly in favor of more complex concepts, since making a character isn't as complex as actually playing them and people are more likely to toy around with using the character builder (which simplifies the character creation process) than they are to play the character, especially since the character builder doesn't make those abilities any less complex to use.
Anyways, data from digital tools that are designed to make complex classes -- and the game overall -- simpler are always going to have more people playing those complex classes than they would if they did not have the tools that made those classes easier to play. Due to this, the data from DDB (because yes, that is where this data is from) which clearly indicates that much more people prefer simplicity to complexity will not be fully representative of how much more people prefer that. If we are looking at the way the vast majority of D&D players still play, on the table with dice and a hand drawn character sheet, then I think it will clearly show that even more players like simplicity, and less like complexity when compared to DDB's data that already found that the latter is much preferred.
The Game Rant article that we were discussing came out in August 2020, so that was months after COVID had started shaking things up. Yes, that is a bit before Tasha's came out, but I doubt that one supplement book, however popular, will shake up the statistics of class popularity that have been consistently saying Fighter is the most popular class book after book and year after year. So this data may be a tad bit old, but it is still an excellent information source and all the newer data I've found has just backed it up.
I don't think DDB explains how they got this data, because they really don't have to. They almost certainly have access to every character that is made here, and I think it seems pretty obvious that they just looked at all the characters and did the percentages for each class and checked. Yes, this does raise a couple problems, but all these problems really do is just make it look like there are more characters than there are not. And they have a handy-dandy tool to see what parties are like which is almost certainly how we have the data about it, that tool is called campaigns. Unless you think DDB decided to maliciously get data in the least optimal ways, then I'm pretty sure we know basically the only logical way they could get it.
And no, "party composition tropes" don't mess with this data because they say you need both a Fighty martial, and a complex magic dude. So it balances out.
TL;DR: This data is universally echoed by numerous sources, and running through all the possibilities, it seems very sound overall. But sure, keep trying to discredit it despite the fact that it's results are clear, and by and large, they are accurate too.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.WE GET IT, BB.
You want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster, and you want martial classes to be the exclusive purview of brand new players. We. Get. It. The people who ACTUALLY work with data in their day-to-day don't know anything about data, the DDB materials are absolutely 100% laws-of-physics level true, and we should just outright eliminate the warlock, the wizard, the artificer, and the druid from the game because Simple is Best and anyone who wants more from the game than HITTIN' STICK is not only objectively wrong but also actively malicious and likely criminally liable for something.
Holy goddamn moosecracker banana ****whistles, why am I still here?
Please do not contact or message me.
No not at all. We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want. Most of the gamers I play with are not new, some of them have 40+ years experience with D&D like I do and plenty of them, me included, play fighters.
These two statements are incompatible.
If that is what you think I want, then you really don't "get it". I don't "want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster," all I want is for you to not rip the simplicity out of Fighter. You can literally have all the complexity you want in any other class.
No they aren't. You can still play the "simple" Fighter complexly via feats, backgrounds, and subclasses. On the other hand, a new player can't play any class they want if you've made half the classes so complicated that it takes years for someone just to understand the basics of how they work.
---
PS- Please call me "Bard", not BB.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.