How Mearls still doesn't understand D&D or balance.

[shadzar]

Yay.

we know MEarls is fucked in the head, but i think he might be able to sort things, so ight not be saying ALL feats ar going to be worse than ALL spells, jsut like items have a priority of which should be bettr.

you cant compare flight to stealth, because they arent even similar, so he compares it to the spell invisibility which is the only thing he can come up with. like tracking probably compares to scrying, not FIREBALL.

[Cyberzombie]

I still don't understand why anyone thinks it is a good idea that nobody should be allowed to track unless they are a ranger or spent significant character resources.

It's the dumb idea that there should be skill classes and non-skill classes, basically another gimmick to prevent the fighter from having nice things. It's funny how the wizard gets eight separate schools of magic by default that do all kinds of crazy stuff, yet people flip their shit when there's a fighter who can track.

If they really wanted to improve the game, then they should take all the fighting classes and merge them into one super class. Even then the fighter would be behind, but at the very least it'd be less insulting than thinking that we need to divide fighter and barbarian into separate classes.

[tussock]

The whole point of the "other" Fighting classes early on was that people kept designing new classes who were better fighters and also had all the useful abilities from other classes.

Obviously now we have human multiclassing and skills and feats, we should just get a better Fighter who can buy shit from other classes with skills and feats. And the Paladin and Ranger and Bard and Cavalier and Barbarian and Swashbuckler and Archer can fuck right off. Only they can't, because legacy. Even though the Wizard is still allowed to have all the Illusionist spells.

Mearls might not be saying ALL feats are going to be worse than ALL spells

Oh, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he's saying. 5e feats are much better than 4e feats, one of them is +2 HP per level for instance, that's a lot of hit points in 5e terms, but it immediately says that any spell which gives hit points will be much better than that, and it is, at over 1d8 hp per level it's more than twice as good.

[shadzar]

right, those nonsense classes just to build a "different" fighter need to go away.

no you are still talking about HP based parts. at no time is he implying that HP class features will be beter than a sleep spell, because having more HP doesn't have a fucking thing to do with sleep.

they are ranked via their equal components in the other areas.

so no he isnt saying fighter class HP will be better than a wizard casting a sleep spell.

[Cyberzombie]

The whole point of the "other" Fighting classes early on was that people kept designing new classes who were better fighters and also had all the useful abilities from other classes.

Obviously now we have human multiclassing and skills and feats, we should just get a better Fighter who can buy shit from other classes with skills and feats. And the Paladin and Ranger and Bard and Cavalier and Barbarian and Swashbuckler and Archer can fuck right off. Only they can't, because legacy. Even though the Wizard is still allowed to have all the Illusionist spells.

I really wonder how big of an outcry would actually occur if they did decide to dump all the fighter subclasses into one fighter class. I tend to think that since you'd be upgrading a class, you'd get a vocal minority against it, but the majority would largely accept the change. Players tend to be universally okay with buffs, but get large outcries over nerfs.

[OgreBattle]

I really wonder how big of an outcry would actually occur if they did decide to dump all the fighter subclasses into one fighter class. I tend to think that since you'd be upgrading a class, you'd get a vocal minority against it, but the majority would largely accept the change. Players tend to be universally okay with buffs, but get large outcries over nerfs.

The "Fighter's get a bunch of feats" class feature would make sense when Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, Swashbuckler, and so on all become feats.

[shadzar]

the reason the fighter is so bland the more time goes on is because it was drawn and quartered into these other tings like ranger and paladin an barbarian, and can never be put back together due to some heritage it has in people's minds. then they want Wuxia shit for a fighter instead of realizing jsut put the fighter back together since for over 30 years he has been in pieces, then the fighter will not only be whole, but be better as a class, and contributor to the game as time goes on. right now he really isn't much good late, because the way people play, they go overpowered (in part due to 3.x design failures). so they will have a tougher fighter that is still a mundane fighter without being Goku levels of silliness. and the people who already have no problem with fighters, will likely still not have problems with fighters as their wizard players wont be schmucks just cause the fighter has been made whole again.

[mikal768]

I'm still trying to figure out how it works where class features are supposed to be better than spells, but spellcasting is a class feature.

Why are you trying to work out a strawman.

Mearls didn't say that one class feature should trump another class feature. He said one subset of a class feature (i.e. one specific spell) shouldn't trump an entire class (rogue)... though he did likely mean a class feature (rogues ability to sneak)