Fighters are boring

[MeeposFire]

I expect some of this apparent reactionary ferver will fade shortly into the system's life. While Mearls doesn't always have the best grasp on system math, and while he's made some decisions I disagree with, I don't think he (or the rest of the design team) are stupid. One thing they need to do, is rebuild their player base, and try to get back players who since went off to retroclones and Pathfinder, as well as attract new fans. This all speaks to honoring certain sacred cows, especially when getting rid of them would complicate the game for new players. However systemic problems that the game has had since OD&D or AD&D or 3e or whenever have you don't just vanish by putting a fresh coat of paint on it, and they know this. That is why there exist subclasses, so they can give themselves an out on matters like complex fighters, and the like. The base game must allow for simple, sure, but that doesn't mean they don't have room for complexity. I suspect we'll see future Supplements which expand the battlemaster's options of Manuevers, and we're almost certain to see more feats, and likely subclasses which expand complexity further. Plus, we have no idea if the DMG will make good on their promise of Modularity. Many people are writing off Modularity, without any evidence that it does not exist. While I admit, I feel am giving perhaps too much credit to Mearls et al, and even I feel I am being a bit overly optimistic, I also feel that we have very little information with which to make informed decisions about the system for the future.

As you appear to be a fan of 4e, I'm sure you can acknowledge that the PHB launch, though significantly more complex than the 5e we've seen glimpses of, would have also shown much cause for concern. It lacked many core races and classes, such as Half-Orc, Bard, Barbarian, ect, and had less than exemplary customization options. Frequently your choice between powers would be slim, as your chosen style would make some options not viable. An archery ranger, for example, might find herself at a choice of powers, where only a couple are even usable for archers, never mind effective. However quickly options were released with PHB 2 and [Source] Power books, and the like, which broadened options considerably.

In systems such as D&D, I rarely think the PHB launch is a good measure of the system, going forward. We have some information on the core launch, but very little on how they will support it, or what the DMG will provide, in terms of allowing for greater complexity. We just don't know, so I feel uncomfortable making judgements right away, on the system.

Actually I am a fan of all editions (except DMing 3e since that requires more effort to succeed than the others to get the same level of fun for me but I will PLAY that edition and it can be my favorite for the art of building characters) what I am really trying to point out is that some of these rules are being used to support some old sacred cows. Some of them are cows that I liked before so it is not a complete complaint. I am saying it is sad because they are keeping them not because they are for the best of the game itself but to try to placate a group to try to get them back to playing this particular game. I understand the reason and I understand it is in their best interest I just wish that wasn't the reason they had to do it. As for why I am referencing 4e so much is that it is the edition with the most obvious differences in design so often it becomes a good reference point. It helps that I like many of the changes but there are many things I would do differently if the choice was mine (for one I think that weapon powers should have been based around basic attacks with the same effects added on to the basic attack rather than being 100% separate powers).

I for one am not worried about the lack of material currently. WotC more than anybody knows that they are going to make lots of books with lots of new options and they know how to milk those things. In 3e it became feats, prestige classes, and eventually full on classes that they used to sell lots of books. In 4e it was powers, paragon paths, and new classes. 2e AD&D found that kits were a big seller. In this edition it may very well be subclasses and other ideas that they use to sell books.

[Fwiffo86]

its not like 4e was anything but a huge success.

Lol

nor is it a good idea to pander to only the most loud of those who like the game of two and three editions ago

Nor is it a good idea to base opinions on one addition alone

[MeeposFire]

The tier system is a measure of potential power for a caster, and (IMO) a commonly observed power for martials. That, IMO, makes it fundamentally flawed. In generally it assumes casters always have the right spell prepared because they change them every day (because they might), while martials will always suffer from encounters where they can't contribute (because they might not). That's not a fair representation, IMO. I'm not saying it's wrong (and I won't be responding to any tier dogma defenders) and casters are very overpowering in 3.x, but it paints a very biased picture where casters get evaluated at their best and martials get evaluated at their average.

The problem with the tier system is that it presents a false composition. Not all Wizards, Druids, and Clerics are tier 1. In our games, most are tier 3 or low tier 2. Most clerics are forced to be low tier 3 because we have 8 players and for some reason there's almost never more than one cleric (to my unending frustration). Depending on the player, I've seen some tier 4 casters. We have one player who between his play style and poor dice rolling will regardless of class always play a tier 5 character (yes, even casters).

I, for one, have seen one tier 1 character in actual play (an Artificer made on a bet with the DM to demonstrate that the class and item creation was overpowered), and only a handful of characters played as tier 2 at level 13+. Our caster players don't want to be walking Gods because either the DM will kill you, the table will make you change your character ("Dude, your character is lame and spoiling the campaign. Dial it back."), or you'll be bored to death. Scry & die never works more than once in a blue moon because the DM will just do it back to us and he's got more resources and better coordination. Yes, the DM has to be fair, but as we've all heard, turnabout is fair play.

Additionally, because the tier system "grades" classes, people mistake the game as a competition and mistake each tier as, well, strict tiers indicating quality of play. "Wizard? That's tier 1! I better play at least tier 3 or I won't be able to have any fun!" That's just not the reality that I've seen, and not a reality that's useful for describing an effective party.

You are actually referencing the tier system incorrectly. You are referencing on how people use the idea but are not actually referencing what it actually is supposed to mean.

The tier system does not assume that you have a specific spell at all. Nor does it try to use any specific build (the few "build" like things you see in there are class variants where they are different enough to be worth mentioning their different tier level). Such concepts are too specific for what the tier system tries to accomplish. Further when a class is assigned to a tier it is not doe with any specific level of optimization at all.

The tier listing uses the idea that when you compare the classes you are comparing them under the same basic level of optimization. A wizard with terrible spell choices is pretty bad but if you compare them to a fighter with equally terrible feat choices (say taking weapon focus for 10 different weapons or something at a similar level of terribleness) that wizard may still look pretty good. Taking that into account and their upper and lower limits the tier listing does a fair job of comparing what classes can do relative to each other. Due to this a wizard is NEVER tier 4 it is always tier 1. That does not mean you are playing it to its full potential (chances are most players will never even try) and a specific player may make one that is worse than your tier 5 fighter but those are specific builds and the tier system isn't really made for that.

Also nowhere in the tier system does JaronK (at least in his system I should say) say anything about any specific tier is better for you to play. Any tier is fine to play his only comment was that if you have characters of widely different tiers of similar OP strength together in the same party (think god wizard with essentially any kind of fighter) the lower tier character will probably feel overshadowed a bit. Any attempt to say that the tiers are saying that 1 is better to play than any other number is just a bias of the person stating it and not the system itself. As I recall JaronK (one of the more common referenced posters that wrote a tier system) prefers playing with tier 3-4 range character types.

Yes many people here do make the tiers into a sort of competition but that is because we are all dumb and do that to ourselves. It is not the actual doing of the tier system.

[Fwiffo86]

I have never seen the tier system used in any other way than to make optimization decisions. You can understand my loathing to it

[MeeposFire]

I have never seen the tier system used in any other way than to make optimization decisions. You can understand my loathing to it

Yes people tend to use it for things it is not really intended and we also tend to use it to mean something it doesn't but we get the idea anyway.

For instance one might say "this is a tier 4 wizard" but that isn't really how it works. The wizard is still a tier one class but the build that has been used in such a way that it could be fielded with a group of tier 4 classes and it would still fit. We get the idea across using the tier system even if that isn't how it was designed to be used. Essentially the concept has been amde to be more versatile than designed for better and for worse on these boards.

[Pex]

Correct, it's a method of quantifying classes in a way that allows a lot of understanding to be communicated in very few words. Anyone who says that you're doing it wrong if you're not Tier 1 3 is more or less a troll, whether they intend to be or not.

Fixed that for you. I've read way too many posts of people bashing spellcasters as too powerful (this thread even) and demand the ban hammer for how dare players have such power (not this thread).

[da_chicken]

You are actually referencing the tier system incorrectly. You are referencing on how people use the idea but are not actually referencing what it actually is supposed to mean.

If there's one thing that the 3.x philosophy teaches us, it's that author intent means very little in the face of what something is used for. I choose to judge most things based on how they're used, not how the inventor/author/designer meant for them to be used. If you wish, you may choose to read my criticisms as a mark against how the tier system is actually used, rather the tier system itself.

[MeeposFire]

Fixed that for you. I've read way too many posts of people bashing spellcasters as too powerful (this thread even) and demand the ban hammer for how dare players have such power (not this thread).

Well that should be obvious the maligned are usually the ones that complain not the ones sitting pretty on top. Most often those playing things that have a lot of power do not complain about having so much power and usually don't mind all that much that others are weaker than them (heck they may not even realize at the time or they might enjoy that). However those that have been left behind tend to notice it and get upset.

There is also the issue of the golden mean and how tier 3 being so in the middle means it works with many classes that fit almost all archetypes since they more easily play well with tier 2 and tier 4s which gives a lot of options. The closer to the edges you get the harder it is to work with since you do not get as much flexibility of what you can easily work with.


Lastly tiers 1-2 are partly defined by how they can casually break the game if they so choose and that is not normally considered a good thing globally (though it may not bother you).

[captpike]

Lol

you do know that using only book sales as a reference 4e made at least as much money as 3e right? and DDI made millions more?

if you do not I suggest you stop only listening to those who hate 4e and want to find reasons to bash it because they know logic and reason will not work.

Nor is it a good idea to base opinions on one addition alone

no I never said they should, but when you actively ignore the latest and very successful edition entirely, and instead try and only try to get people back who left during 2e and 3e it just makes no sense.

the goal should be to make the best game possible to fit the (very very large) niche that D&D sits in, if they can put in the cows sure they should, but if it hurts the game in any way they should throw them out.

there is little reason to have a new edition if your not willing to try new things, and throw out the systems that have been shown not to work well.

[Arzanyos]

Which systems, might I ask, have been shown not to work well?

[Fwiffo86]

you do know that using only book sales as a reference 4e made at least as much money as 3e right? and DDI made millions more?

if you do not I suggest you stop only listening to those who hate 4e and want to find reasons to bash it because they know logic and reason will not work.



no I never said they should, but when you actively ignore the latest and very successful edition entirely, and instead try and only try to get people back who left during 2e and 3e it just makes no sense.

the goal should be to make the best game possible to fit the (very very large) niche that D&D sits in, if they can put in the cows sure they should, but if it hurts the game in any way they should throw them out.

there is little reason to have a new edition if your not willing to try new things, and throw out the systems that have been shown not to work well.

I have a grand idea, lets do some theoretical math shall we?

Lets assume that the various editions of D&D have all cost the exact same regardless of the time frame that they come from. So 10 bucks in 1981 = 10 bucks in 2014. Now lets total up all the books from each addition. Then lets compare what sold more? (Basic)+(1e)+(2e)+(3e)+(3.5e) against (4e). Which has more materials to purchase? I'm betting it isn't 4e. As you cling to your "sacred cow" of 4e and consistently seem to think is superior ONLY because it sold X amount of materials, you continuously ignore how many materials of all other editions have sold. Why you choose to pick materials sold as your yard stick for measuring the actual success of a product is beyond me. Given that a product bought and stored in the basement is not really a success now is it? It's just a product sold. Basically I am saying is Just because it sold a book does NOT mean it was a success. It only means it sold a book.

I'm also willing to be that your 4e fan base includes people who are fans of other additions as well, even if they don't make up the majority as you are usually willing to argue. That is your argument right? That there are more fans of 4e than there could possibly be of all the other additions? Despite existing for 30 years before 4e. And that because 4e has such superior numbers that 5e should be built to include, and possibly cater to those fans; because the large fan base of previous editions doesn't actually matter that much (as you have stated before, See any post where you rank fans by order of "importance").

And to address your 4e comment. I don't have any opinion of 4e. I have heard good things, and I have heard bad things. I have never played it. I did read through the PHB, didn't like they way it no longer felt like D&D to me (My own personal opinion) and left it alone.

I have a problem with your inability to judge anything without using 4e as your baseline. I have a problem with your belief that 4e is superior because everything is balanced (theoretically). I have a problem with your belief that (X) number of 4e books sold equals success. And I have a problem with your complete disregard for any opinion other than your own. Especially when it comes to someone pointing out to you that 4e WAS D&D trying new things, and obviously someone either thought that was the wrong way to go, or they were unhappy with its progress.

Which given your normal response routine will mean that you will choose things in this post, take them out of context, assume I am talking about something I am not, and develop a tangent never intended to exist. Which is perfectly fine. Go ahead.

[MeeposFire]

Which systems, might I ask, have been shown not to work well?

That would be a question that ends up being very personal and I don't think you will find broad consensus on most things. But as one example 1e initiative is generally considered to be more a hassle than a benefit.

[da_chicken]

I think there's design space for class-agnostic build features. However, I think feats - as they exist in D&D - don't adequately fill that space.

The general problems are...

(1) Feats are used for everything that's class-agnostic. It's a grab bag - the "Miscellaneous" category that has outgrown your filing system. Learning a language or a skill costs a feat. A special maneuver with a weapon costs a feat. Being awesome with armor costs a feat. A bonus on a class of saving throws costs a feat. It's a tremendous hodge-podge of stuff, mixing together combat, non-combat; bonuses, and new options.
(2) The value of feats are set at "1 feat." This is fine for simplicity, but it doesn't bear out in practice on account of the first issue.
(3) Feats are poorly organized, and quickly bloat beyond reasonable limits given the open design space. Just like with "spells" I tend to think this is an inherent problem with the design, rather than a problem with bloat itself. Bloat is inevitable given this setup.
ed:
(4) They often turn into class features, which is terrible. Getting more feats isn't a class feature, it's just more of what everyone gets. If your class design relies on feats, it's mingling together class-based and class-agnostic features. I can go into this more later, but it's part of why I think the 3e (and 5e) Fighters are so unsatisfying. "More of what everyone gets" isn't a real class feature; it's a cop-out for a class-based game.

How can you fix it? A few ways I can think of.
* You could better-define Feats, or else categorize them into combat vs. noncombat. Otherwise, you're weighing the value of "Resist 3 All" vs. "Know 3 more languages." The latter may be legitimately useful in some campaigns but legitimately useless in others, so they shouldn't compete for the same generic resource.
* Give every feat both combat and non-combat applications
* Tie feats closer to the class structure, like they are in 13th Age, where they are no longer class-agnostic, by and large; they are enhancements to your race or class.
* Organize them in a much smaller number of chains, like you'd find in many CRPGs nowadays. That way, you're not picking from 200 feats; you're picking one of maybe 10 each time, then improving them. This also allows you to effectively set variable costs.
* You should never have to decide between "effective" and "interesting." When given a choice, players tend to go with boring passive bonuses. These boring static bonuses should just be incorporated into the class progressions and just taken as a given, and thus be largely removed from the "feat" design space - which can then be leveraged for more interesting stuff.

e: Also, in both 1e and 4e I've seen successful "Fighter up front, Wizard in back" setups. In 1e, it's largely a result of dungeon environs where corridors made it possible. In 4e, it's because the Fighter's a very well-designed class, and that's how the game works.

Thanks for this, obryn. I still don't dislike feats, but I do agree that the general problems you list are all accurate and well-reasoned criticisms.

I think the whole class Path system (I do hate the term "subclass" for some reason) potentially stands to be much more appealing than feats, since those features can potentially be a lot more powerful (only one class can get them), a lot more interesting, and much more transformative than a feat really can be. That makes me wish that WotC had invested more time in additional paths or paths with more features (or just plain more Class features).

Hm. Ok, so, from a design perspective, both Ability Score Increase and Class Path features are shapeable by the player. I wonder if it's feasible to replace some of the higher level ASIs with Path Features in classes that are ASI-heavy (basically: Fighter). I don't think you want to replace ASIs at 4/8/12/16/19 which seem to be bog standard (all 5 classes we've seen have them, and they're at level/4, with the one at 19 making room for a more impressive capstone at 20), but that means the ASI at Fighter 6 and Fighter 14 could (or, I suppose you would argue, should) be Path features (or outright Class features). Of course that means Rogue 10 is a blank Class/Path feature, too. Hm.

As I said above, I still like feats, but I see what you're saying now.

[obryn]

Thanks for this, obryn. I still don't dislike feats, but I do agree that the general problems you list are all accurate and well-reasoned criticisms.

Thanks! I try.

I agree that paths/subclasses/whatevs can - and should - fill a role which had been previously relegated to feats. That's a good thing.

I also think it's important I mention that, so far, I hate 5e feats the least of all D&D feats, so far. Part of that is how great it is that they're pushed back a few levels and less dominant in the advancement structure. Partly, it's because so far feats seem to be pretty important; there's no "prone shooters" or "astral flares" (yet). But overall, I still think they occupy the same confused design space they've occupied since 2000.

[captpike]

I have a grand idea, lets do some theoretical math shall we?

Lets assume that the various editions of D&D have all cost the exact same regardless of the time frame that they come from. So 10 bucks in 1981 = 10 bucks in 2014. Now lets total up all the books from each addition. Then lets compare what sold more? (Basic)+(1e)+(2e)+(3e)+(3.5e) against (4e). Which has more materials to purchase? I'm betting it isn't 4e. As you cling to your "sacred cow" of 4e and consistently seem to think is superior ONLY because it sold X amount of materials, you continuously ignore how many materials of all other editions have sold. Why you choose to pick materials sold as your yard stick for measuring the actual success of a product is beyond me. Given that a product bought and stored in the basement is not really a success now is it? It's just a product sold. Basically I am saying is Just because it sold a book does NOT mean it was a success. It only means it sold a book.

I'm also willing to be that your 4e fan base includes people who are fans of other additions as well, even if they don't make up the majority as you are usually willing to argue. That is your argument right? That there are more fans of 4e than there could possibly be of all the other additions? Despite existing for 30 years before 4e. And that because 4e has such superior numbers that 5e should be built to include, and possibly cater to those fans; because the large fan base of previous editions doesn't actually matter that much (as you have stated before, See any post where you rank fans by order of "importance").

And to address your 4e comment. I don't have any opinion of 4e. I have heard good things, and I have heard bad things. I have never played it. I did read through the PHB, didn't like they way it no longer felt like D&D to me (My own personal opinion) and left it alone.

I have a problem with your inability to judge anything without using 4e as your baseline. I have a problem with your belief that 4e is superior because everything is balanced (theoretically). I have a problem with your belief that (X) number of 4e books sold equals success. And I have a problem with your complete disregard for any opinion other than your own. Especially when it comes to someone pointing out to you that 4e WAS D&D trying new things, and obviously someone either thought that was the wrong way to go, or they were unhappy with its progress.

Which given your normal response routine will mean that you will choose things in this post, take them out of context, assume I am talking about something I am not, and develop a tangent never intended to exist. Which is perfectly fine. Go ahead.

if your going to insult me please don't just pull thing out of your ass, use what I call "facts", you have probably heard of them in school, even if you rarely use them yourself.

I change my opinion on things the only way that is rational, only after I see either facts or logic that changes them. I don't change them because someone else disagrees, regardless of who they are.

I agree using sold books is a inefficient metric at best, but I have yet to hear of a better one that is not "what me and my friends think" or a poll that is so bias that it gives no useful data (like putting it on a site that caters to one edition, and hardly has anyone who likes the others, let alone has a way to know if the people on the site are a good sample)
tell me another way to make an impartial judgement on the popularity and I will listen.

I have never said 4e has more fans then 3e, I think that is the case but I can't know that for sure. however there is no doubt that there are more then enough to justify them as a very important (probably the second most important) fanbase.
also more then a few people were fans of older editions now play 4e because it is different, because it fixed the huge holes the system had. they would no more go back to 3e then you would go back to using dial up.

I use 4e as my baseline first because I know it the best. second because its the latest edition, why would you pick a random edition to judge it by when you can use the last one? see if the new game did improve on it or did not. see it they learned from their mistakes or did not.

also why do you assume Wotc is only doing what is best? that because someone at the company made a decision its the best one to make? they are just people, people who have a bad track record for the last few years.

[captpike]

Which systems, might I ask, have been shown not to work well?

in 5e and 3e? the basic spell system does not work well. even were the spells perfectly balanced that balance would require a set number of rounds per day, and would hardly work even then.
too few and the wizard can use all their dailies spells in one go and win every fight. too many and the wizard runs and is at a much lower power level then they were ever intended to be at. even if you do stay at the rounds/day the system was made for the wizard will outshine the fighter because all the important fights will be won by the wizard, while the fighter will only be allow to do those fights that are not worth the time of the wizard.

[Arzanyos]

Dude, we have done this so many times already. The wizard can't just wave his hand an end an encounter like in 3e. Sleep is still a bomb in low levels, though. But, all these broken encounter ending spells that obsolete the fighter are just phantoms as of now. They may come, but they are not here right now.

[Sartharina]

[QUOTE=obryn;17811234]How can you fix it? A few ways I can think of.

* You could better-define Feats, or else categorize them into combat vs. noncombat. Otherwise, you're weighing the value of "Resist 3 All" vs. "Know 3 more languages." The latter may be legitimately useful in some campaigns but legitimately useless in others, so they shouldn't compete for the same generic resource.

I can sort of agree with this, maybe. I could see how 4e could have been improved by having Combat Feats and Utility Feats separated, with a requirement of 3 of each per tier. Something I find myself doing anyway in 4e when Essential Houserules are in place (removing the two biggest feat taxes) is grabbing the three or four feats of each tier most useful to my combat ability, and two or three noncombat/utility feats I like for flavor.

* Give every feat both combat and non-combat applications

I can agree with this, I think, especially as the approach 5e should have taken.

* Tie feats closer to the class structure, like they are in 13th Age, where they are no longer class-agnostic, by and large; they are enhancements to your race or class.

No thanks. That's for class features, not feats. I like 5e and 4e's handling of feats far more than trying to use them as modular class features, allowing a character concept to span or transcend classes. Such as swordmages, arcane archers, skirmisher fighters, spellswords, spell snipers... or just give expanded utility in the other two branches of adventure.

* Organize them in a much smaller number of chains, like you'd find in many CRPGs nowadays. That way, you're not picking from 200 feats; you're picking one of maybe 10 each time, then improving them. This also allows you to effectively set variable costs.

OH HELL NO! The worst part of 3e was the feat chains. Of course, part of that may be from the mixed space issue, but I hated how I had to pay for ****ty little effects in 3e to get to the ones I needed (Point Blank Shot, I want you to die in a fire and take the ******* that decided every archery feat should be tied to you with you!), and every feat selection had to be paid for in advance. My favorite part of 4e is the ability to grab almost any six feats I want from any tier without having to worry about what other feats I've grabbed, with the exception of a few feat chains that usually synergize well together or don't require significant investment (Such as chains with two Heroic and one Paragon feat or so)

* You should never have to decide between "effective" and "interesting." When given a choice, players tend to go with boring passive bonuses. These boring static bonuses should just be incorporated into the class progressions and just taken as a given, and thus be largely removed from the "feat" design space - which can then be leveraged for more interesting stuff.

I can sort of get behind this. The weapon focus/specialization chain from 3e should have been a class feature, at any rate. And, 4e's infamous Improved Defenses and Weapon Expertise feats needed to be baked into the classes much better instead of competing for space with Long Jumper and Butcher's Lure.

[captpike]

Dude, we have done this so many times already. The wizard can't just wave his hand an end an encounter like in 3e. Sleep is still a bomb in low levels, though. But, all these broken encounter ending spells that obsolete the fighter are just phantoms as of now. They may come, but they are not here right now.

were NO spells that ended encounters to exist sure you might have a point but they do. sleep and web exist, it is unreasonable to not expect more to be in the PHB.
although honestly one is one too many.

not to mention the damage spells that could easily outdamage the fighter with just one use in an encounter.

[Sartharina]

were NO spells that ended encounters to exist sure you might have a point but they do. sleep and web exist, it is unreasonable to not expect more to be in the PHB.
although honestly one is one too many.

Sleep is a few d6 of fake damage that can be completely negated by failing to TPK the enemy team. Web is strong, but is worthless without anyone to clean up the mess (Which wizards lack the strength to do), doesn't leave the targets helpless, and can be quickly countered - especially if the enemies don't fear a few d4 of fire damage.

In my games, the party rogue,cleric and fighter end encounters quickly as well, simply by killing the enemies. Single High-HP target? End it with a focus-fire of 1d8+3d6+9 points of damage. Multiple targets? Kill them with 1d6+3, 2d6, 1d6+3, 1d6+3, 1d8+2 points of damage distributed as necessary.

not to mention the damage spells that could easily outdamage the fighter with just one use in an encounter.

The wizard is a Glass Cannon. The Fighter is a Stone Wall. The fighter doesn't have anywhere near the best damage output in the game, nor is he intended to. Instead, he has the best ratio of damage to survivability.

[The Mormegil]

Sleep is a few d6 of fake damage that can be completely negated by failing to TPK the enemy team. Web is strong, but is worthless without anyone to clean up the mess (Which wizards lack the strength to do), doesn't leave the targets helpless, and can be quickly countered - especially if the enemies don't fear a few d4 of fire damage.

In my games, the party rogue,cleric and fighter end encounters quickly as well, simply by killing the enemies. Single High-HP target? End it with a focus-fire of 1d8+3d6+9 points of damage. Multiple targets? Kill them with 1d6+3, 2d6, 1d6+3, 1d6+3, 1d8+2 points of damage distributed as necessary.

The wizard is a Glass Cannon. The Fighter is a Stone Wall. The fighter doesn't have anywhere near the best damage output in the game, nor is he intended to. Instead, he has the best ratio of damage to survivability.

I tend to think that playing mop-up is not fun. I also believe to be in the majority when I say this.

Even in 3.5 you totally benefit from having a fighter in your party. Sure, that fighter might as well be a bound demon, but someone to mop up effectively is definitely needed, and an optimized charger build can always be put to use. Problem is, it's not like he's more like a weapon and less like a character. "The wizard casts web & the fighter cleans up" is a bad encounter paradigm: the wizard has all the narrative power and the fighter only goes through the motion. This is due to how Vancian magic works (IMO: very badly).

Yet one more reason I don't like 5e I guess. And I guess it's one more reason due to traditionalism running rampant for no apparent reason.

[Callin]

Sleep caps out at 21d8 in Hit Points. Average is only 84. That is hardly enough to put to sleep an 8th level Fighter. So its quickly becomes a useless spell unless your DM wants to throw a Goblin Horde at you.

[1337 b4k4]

I agree using sold books is a inefficient metric at best, but I have yet to hear of a better one that is not "what me and my friends think" or a poll that is so bias that it gives no useful data (like putting it on a site that caters to one edition, and hardly has anyone who likes the others, let alone has a way to know if the people on the site are a good sample)
tell me another way to make an impartial judgement on the popularity and I will listen.

Well, one good metric for measuring success might be "what is it being replaced with?". For example, were WotC to replace 4e with an iteration that took 4e and improved or expanded on it, we could rather easily conclude that 4e was successful by WotC's standards. On the other hand, were WotC to replace 4e with an iteration that largely rolls back all the things 4e did and changed, we could rather easily conclude that 4e was not successful by WotC's standards. We can reach these conclusions because large companies (like Hasbro / WotC) are largely risk averse and tend not to make sweeping changes to their successful and winning formulas, and when they do make those sweeping changes, if those changes fail to live up to expectations, they get quickly rolled back.

also why do you assume Wotc is only doing what is best? that because someone at the company made a decision its the best one to make? they are just people, people who have a bad track record for the last few years.

I can't speak for the previous poster, but I'm not assuming they're only doing what's best. I'm assuming they're doing what they think will gain them the most money, since that's what companies tend to do. As I pointed out above, companies don't do sweeping changes lightly. Somewhere, someone looked at the money they were making with pre-4e D&D, and the money they were making with 4e D&D, and decided that they were likely to make more money with a new edition that was more like pre-4e D&D.

Then there's also the basic examination we can do on industry trends. The TTRPG industry is actually growing right now. Multiple indie games are taking hold or expanding (Burning Wheel / Mouseguard, Fiasco, Fate etc) and new entrants are making lots of money with old D&D (Pathfinder, the entire OSR movement). And with all of this activity, the best we can come up with for 4e is that "it made at least as much as its predecessor". Here's the problem, when your industry is growing, new entrants are making money, and your next biggest competitor is giving away your previous product for free and is still competing neck and neck with you for share and tables and the best you can say about your current product is "It's not doing worse than the last product that our competitors are still making money off of", you don't generally call that a success. Treading water (by corporate standards in a growth market) is not considered success.

were NO spells that ended encounters to exist sure you might have a point but they do. sleep and web exist, it is unreasonable to not expect more to be in the PHB.

and

I tend to think that playing mop-up is not fun. I also believe to be in the majority when I say this.
...
"The wizard casts web & the fighter cleans up" is a bad encounter paradigm: the wizard has all the narrative power and the fighter only goes through the motion. This is due to how Vancian magic works (IMO: very badly).

Frankly speaking, if all of your encounters are ending with a single Web or Sleep spell, you're running your encounters wrong. Sure, any one encounter might end that way, but why are all of your enemies always conveniently clustering together in one spot for the wizard to target? Why are they all fighting in small enclosed rooms with no space to maneuver? Why do they not have reinforcements and surprised and backups? And for that matter, why are your players always going up against an "appropriate" number of enemies?

Now I admit, this isn't all players / DMs fault. In WotC ignoring D&D history, one thing that fell by the wayside was massive outnumbering encounters. Old editions and old modules had rooms where you didn't encounter 5 goblins, you encountered 4d8 goblins. Or 20d4 kobolds. Beetles on ceilings, with lurkers above and gelatenous cubes in pit traps below. And the whole thing was made worse by 3e/4e's reliance on "the encounter" as a unit of measure. Dungeons aren't strings of connected but unrelated encounters, and monsters don't wait patiently in the next room for you to slaughter their companions next door, but that's exactly how 3e and 4e view encounters. Self contained boxes of challenge. D&D (and for that matter it's spell system) were not originally designed with that mindset, and issues with "wizards win all the time and fighters do cleanup" is a result of trying to mash incompatible systems and challenge design together.

Don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of issues with what WotC has done with the D&D magic system that need to be cleaned up, but "wizards win all the encounters" is a DM failing. Set up your encounters correctly and your wizards will be helpful but not overpowering.

[obryn]

(stuff)

Yeah, it's not intended as a "do all these things" list; it's more of a "some of these changes might make feats better" list.

[Fwiffo86]

if your going to insult me please don't just pull thing out of your ass, use what I call "facts", you have probably heard of them in school, even if you rarely use them yourself.

If you feel I insulted you, please list the statements I made that you feel are me targeting you in particular. As I recall, I attempted (maybe poorly) to target your ill conceived notions.

I agree using sold books is a inefficient metric at best, but I have yet to hear of a better one that is not "what me and my friends think" or a poll that is so bias that it gives no useful data (like putting it on a site that caters to one edition, and hardly has anyone who likes the others, let alone has a way to know if the people on the site are a good sample) tell me another way to make an impartial judgement on the popularity and I will listen.

Why are you bothering to defend something that you acknowledge is flawed?

I use 4e as my baseline first because I know it the best. second because its the latest edition, why would you pick a random edition to judge it by when you can use the last one? see if the new game did improve on it or did not. see it they learned from their mistakes or did not.

And this is my problem with you. You can't see past 4e. I am using the editions that 5e is most similar to (3.5 & 2e IMO), as a baseline. It is not similar to 4e, therefore using it as a baseline would be ill advised.

Additionally, you seem to voluntarily ignore all comments directed at you that state simply... If 4e was such a success, why didn't they use IT as the base for 5e? Could it possibly be that either the TOTAL fan base is in favor of a different type of game, or that your 4e fan base is not nearly as influential as you want to believe? See post quoted below that says the same thing.

Well, one good metric for measuring success might be "what is it being replaced with?". For example, were WotC to replace 4e with an iteration that took 4e and improved or expanded on it, we could rather easily conclude that 4e was successful by WotC's standards. On the other hand, were WotC to replace 4e with an iteration that largely rolls back all the things 4e did and changed, we could rather easily conclude that 4e was not successful by WotC's standards. We can reach these conclusions because large companies (like Hasbro / WotC) are largely risk averse and tend not to make sweeping changes to their successful and winning formulas, and when they do make those sweeping changes, if those changes fail to live up to expectations, they get quickly rolled back.

In plain English, your opinions are biased and you refuse to acknowledge other points of view. You are entitled to such a stance of course, but that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to listen. Noone has to listen to me either. I accept this. Just as I accept that what I state is nothing more than opinion. I don't claim to state facts.

[Morty]

Like with most things, I see feats as means to an end. If their end, that is to say, rounding off your character in a relatively unrestrained way, can be achieved through other means, they don't need to exist. But I think they might be the simplest way of achieving that - if done right. The trick, I think, is to make sure feats are really optional, not in the sense that you don't need to use the system at all (although that's not exactly impossible) but in the sense that you look at the feat list thinking "which of those nice additions do I want for my character" rather than "which of those do I need to make my character concept work". I'm not sure if it's possible, but that's the goal to shoot for.

[Fwiffo86]

I agree with Morty. But I also tend to think a too rigidly built concept is also bad for characters. Because if you have a concept that by its very nature requires "Feat A, B & C, Class 1 & 2, etc" you already have your character planned out to level 20, which means you have no room to grow in response to the game.

You can't plan on religious experiences that change your life decisions as an example. Sure, you can say... "I always wanted to be a part of the priesthood" but designing 20 levels of character before you get anywhere near them takes out the possibility your character will grow based on Roleplaying and Player decisions in game.

Feats, class features, classes, etc. should be flexible, but not overly so. A combat feat should not have out of combat uses. It should have an equally useful (notice I didn't say powerful) non-combat choice. Since the power of a feat is largely in the hands of the DM and not the player (meaning combat feats are only useful if you have combat, and the more you have, the more powerful the feat becomes) it is difficult to judge a feat based on its "math" alone.

[TrexPushups]

Wizard domination becomes less problematic when wandering monsters are a thing.

Fighters can get by with less beauty sleep and if the wizard truly needs the rest might even attempt to kill the early alarm clock without waking up the finger wigglers.

[obryn]

Wizard domination becomes less problematic when wandering monsters are a thing.

Fighters can get by with less beauty sleep and if the wizard truly needs the rest might even attempt to kill the early alarm clock without waking up the finger wigglers.

The 1 hour duration of a "short" rest - and the ease of interrupting them - means that wandering monsters are just as bad for Fighters.

If you can rest for an hour, you can often rest for 8 hours. I think that's the case in the Starter Set adventure.

[Morty]

I agree with Morty. But I also tend to think a too rigidly built concept is also bad for characters. Because if you have a concept that by its very nature requires "Feat A, B & C, Class 1 & 2, etc" you already have your character planned out to level 20, which means you have no room to grow in response to the game.

Not necessarily. It can also mean that the system doesn't support your concept without hoop jumping, which is the case with finesse fighters and crossbow users, just to name two in most editions of D&D.