I'm waiting to see how my players react next week. See if there's a fight over who's gonna get to play class x, or if someone is bumed they got stuck playing class y.
And that would be the sign that something should be changed/balanced, especially the latter.
I thought the point of *this* stage of the playtest was to test the core game MECHANICS, and not specifically the classes and whether or not they were balanced. Now, I get that some people here don't like it, or they won't believe there is more coming until they see it. And others are more willing to wait and see how it all plays out. Neither of those particular opinions is wrong here - but for me, I think I have a different understanding of this stage of the playtest.
If you think the fighter is a problem? Fine. Write it down. Have you played it? I haven't. I mean, I just got my packet a few hours ago, so I haven't had time. But, if you HAVE played it, then yes, *I* would be interested to know how the fighter actually played in a real combat, given a real opportunity to be played, participate, contribute, etc.
What I would ask from my fellow gamers here, however, is a little bit of civility. Calling people names (and that has been done in this thread) is absolutely immaterial to the points you try to make and, frankly, just make it look as if you have no real argument to make. Likewise, insulting people doesn't go far, either. So, could we just focus on the playtest, provide real and meaningful feedback (because, if my thinking is right, we actually have to PLAY these things to TEST them, right, not just go only by how they appear on the page.) If we could all do that, I think the feedback that we could all offer on all sides of this particular issue would be far more constructive than name-calling or whatever.
You play a fighter because you want to play a fighter. Who cares what DMG you can do or anything like that. Fighters use weapons and fight and thats what its all about. So be creative at what you do. Its not covered by the rules? Cool let the DM figure something out. I'm a DM and thats my favorite time. When martial charaters try and do something crazy.
-Anthony
Oh, so I DO get to autokill the Tarrasque with a single swing if it bombs a save? Cool. If not, shut your trap, because you're a hypocrite and a liar.
That was extrodinarly rude and totally uncalled for. Its one thing to debate, but you are just name calling if someone disagrees with you. Please stop that. Post reported.
Once again, you have to keep in mind the stated design philosophy of this game, and where we are in the playtest process. The game is intended to be modular, or have a tool box approach. The basic fighter is going to be like playing a 1st edition fighter, you hit it with your sword, you hit it with your sword, and then for a change you hit it with your sword. There are people who actually like this style of play. I am not one of them, but people play dnd retro clones for a reason, and some players are going to want this.
At this point the test is on the most basic aspects of the game, basic combat mechanics, survivability, saving throws, etc. This just the bones. We don't have the skin or even the muscles yet.
Put another way, you are not testing the game, you are testing some mechanical systems that will be part of the game. A vast amount of material has yet to be released. The designers have stated and I have full confidence that there will be more mechanical cruch to the fighter later, in the form of additional optional rules. For right now the only question is does the fighter function in terms of toughness, damage output, ability to "tank", etc. Much more comes later.
You judge the material based on what was given, if the material given is crap, it is our duty as testers to let them know that in it's current state it is unnacceptable so they have to cater to a different audience as well.
How is that hard to understand?
He doesn't think it's crap, is the thing. He's a lost cause.
The original complaint of this thread was that fighters were boring, and don't really do anything but attack. Believe it or not, there are people out there who HATED the fact that the figher had powers, and they went off to play retro clones. I am not one of them, I liked 4th edition quite alot, but one of the goals of the new edition is to pull those people back into the fold. And from a business point of very, that is very smart. The fact that the core figher is super simple is not a bug, its a feature.
There are more optional rules coming to make your figher more complex and give them more options. Seriously, we have four pregen characters, only four classes, no character gen rules, NONE of the optional rules, we have only seen a small portion of the game.
If you have played the playtest and you are finding things like "the figher does to much/not enough damage", or "the figher is too easy to hit" or "the fighter is unkillable/needs to be toned down", that kind of feedback is what they are looking for at this point. But one of the intentional design elements of this edition is that a very, very simple fighter will be an option. Calling it crap and calling me a lost cause before we have even seen most of the rules (a) very premature. and (b) extremely rude. Judging the finsihed game at this point is like trying to guess the body style of a car having only seen the drive train.
No, it isn't. This is classic grognard entitlement, which is absolutely dim and egocentric. WotC doesn't need you. It doesn't need me, either. What it needs, and drill this through your skull, is new people. It needs to get all the 12-13 year old kids to purchase D&D products, and when they grow up, to get the new batch of 13 year olds to do the same. They already have you eating from the palm of their hand. They don't need to cater to you. This doesn't cater to 13 year olds, but to washed up old fogies. It's a failure.
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
I thought the point of *this* stage of the playtest was to test the core game MECHANICS, and not specifically the classes and whether or not they were balanced. Now, I get that some people here don't like it, or they won't believe there is more coming until they see it. And others are more willing to wait and see how it all plays out. Neither of those particular opinions is wrong here - but for me, I think I have a different understanding of this stage of the playtest.
If you think the fighter is a problem? Fine. Write it down. Have you played it? I haven't. I mean, I just got my packet a few hours ago, so I haven't had time. But, if you HAVE played it, then yes, *I* would be interested to know how the fighter actually played in a real combat, given a real opportunity to be played, participate, contribute, etc.
What I would ask from my fellow gamers here, however, is a little bit of civility. Calling people names (and that has been done in this thread) is absolutely immaterial to the points you try to make and, frankly, just make it look as if you have no real argument to make. Likewise, insulting people doesn't go far, either. So, could we just focus on the playtest, provide real and meaningful feedback (because, if my thinking is right, we actually have to PLAY these things to TEST them, right, not just go only by how they appear on the page.) If we could all do that, I think the feedback that we could all offer on all sides of this particular issue would be far more constructive than name-calling or whatever.
I thought the point of *this* stage of the playtest was to test the core game MECHANICS, and not specifically the classes and whether or not they were balanced. Now, I get that some people here don't like it, or they won't believe there is more coming until they see it. And others are more willing to wait and see how it all plays out. Neither of those particular opinions is wrong here - but for me, I think I have a different understanding of this stage of the playtest.
If you think the fighter is a problem? Fine. Write it down. Have you played it? I haven't. I mean, I just got my packet a few hours ago, so I haven't had time. But, if you HAVE played it, then yes, *I* would be interested to know how the fighter actually played in a real combat, given a real opportunity to be played, participate, contribute, etc.
What I would ask from my fellow gamers here, however, is a little bit of civility. Calling people names (and that has been done in this thread) is absolutely immaterial to the points you try to make and, frankly, just make it look as if you have no real argument to make. Likewise, insulting people doesn't go far, either. So, could we just focus on the playtest, provide real and meaningful feedback (because, if my thinking is right, we actually have to PLAY these things to TEST them, right, not just go only by how they appear on the page.) If we could all do that, I think the feedback that we could all offer on all sides of this particular issue would be far more constructive than name-calling or whatever.
Mark
Well said. A "boring" fighter is a subjective, non-mechanical issue. What we need at this point is feed back on damage, survivability, ability to protect, etc. MECHANICAL analysis, not playstyle analysis.
And I agree, lets be civil, please. Calling people names because they have a different opinion should have been left in grade school.
@Gelatinous: I'm not noticing much of a difference between power strike and 2/day: make 2 attacks.
The slayer also has stances.
The slayer can do power strike every encounter. It has as many "power strikes" as the mage got encounter powers. While the 5e fighter gets less bonus attacks than the wizard does spells per day.
The slayer wasn't competing against a guy with save or dies.
Nearly every slayer grabs the +1 stance, or the +charge stance and that's it. But again, i'm not arguing against boring. The fighter straight up is (and that's ok... for a few classes).
The wizard does 1d4+1 damage. The fighter does 2d6+7 damage. Even with the auto-hit, the fighter is doing 100% more damage (assuming 10+ hits). The fighter also has alot more HD, AC, and doesn't get disrupted.
Sleep only affects those with 10 HP or fewer. The fighter has 98% chance to deal 10 damage.
Sleep is only for minions.
Honestly, the fighter is probably the most powerful of any of the current builds. Even rogues with sneak attack are doing 2d6+3 vs fighters 2d6+7. Though they catch up at level 3.
The Fighter actually does 1d12+5 when you built it according to the rules instead of use the pregen. Greataxes do d12's, and fighter is 3 strength +2 weapon focus bonus.
A modular release won't fix it because once someone doesn't have what they want right away they will write it off entirely. They have to have all their options at once or they risk alienating their base.
What is the niche for this 5e fighter as presented? The person who hated 4e, is not happy with pathfinder or 2e? What compelling reason do they have to change other than to wanting the 'newest' thing?
I thought the point of *this* stage of the playtest was to test the core game MECHANICS, and not specifically the classes and whether or not they were balanced. Now, I get that some people here don't like it, or they won't believe there is more coming until they see it. And others are more willing to wait and see how it all plays out. Neither of those particular opinions is wrong here - but for me, I think I have a different understanding of this stage of the playtest.
If you think the fighter is a problem? Fine. Write it down. Have you played it? I haven't. I mean, I just got my packet a few hours ago, so I haven't had time. But, if you HAVE played it, then yes, *I* would be interested to know how the fighter actually played in a real combat, given a real opportunity to be played, participate, contribute, etc.
What I would ask from my fellow gamers here, however, is a little bit of civility. Calling people names (and that has been done in this thread) is absolutely immaterial to the points you try to make and, frankly, just make it look as if you have no real argument to make. Likewise, insulting people doesn't go far, either. So, could we just focus on the playtest, provide real and meaningful feedback (because, if my thinking is right, we actually have to PLAY these things to TEST them, right, not just go only by how they appear on the page.) If we could all do that, I think the feedback that we could all offer on all sides of this particular issue would be far more constructive than name-calling or whatever.
Mark
But ... but it's more fun to be mean! Ok, seriously this is probably the way I should have approached all this. Well said, excellent post, gold star of the day, etc.
For the record, though, 'pal' and 'homie' don't really count as namecalling. Er, right? I'm right, aren't I?
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.
Section Six Soldier
Front Door of the House of Trolls
If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.
