Role Master and MERP gave everyone the ability to pick and use every skill and spell class. They used a skill point system. But after player for a year or more we learned that is was better to just spend all you points in the few skills your character was designed for and to max them out as fast as possible.
Leave the magic to the casters the healing to the healers and the fighting to the fighters. The Jack-of-all-trades character is great as a loner but not a fully crewed party member.
I have played RMSS and RM2 and MERP for a long time and it is a vastly different system then 5e. No classes per say but your class/profession defines how much skills cost with every one being able to buy most skills (later books had some skills that were tied to professions or skills), in RMSS some skills were simply too expensive for some professions to buy...but you could. As to max out some skills and buy some every 1-3 levels and then see what you have left and buy stuff, I agree that is the method I recommend to players with some changes at specific skill levels.
JoaT PC in RMSS was an important part of our games as they could help the primary if they were injured, low on spell points or maybe as a template idea for a new profession. But RMSS is vastly different from Rm2 and MERP is a subset of RM1 or RM2.
R5e does a relatively poor job of engaging players beyond a narrative level. The game has enough meat on its bones for newer players and players more concerned with Fluff than Crunch to happily play for many years, but as the explosion of third-party system content shows, there's a thriving market for more advanced and engaging rules that Wizards has, thus far, steadfastly refused to serve. Entire publishing companies exist (Hit Point and Kobold Presses, to name just two well-known and popular ones) to sell third-party Fifth Edition rules expansions and system boosters; they wouldn't exist if the game was as sublimely perfect as nay-sayers want to claim. There is absolutely room in the game for additional depth, granularity, and engagement, even if it has to come in the form of the optional rules overlays Wizards has been promising since they R'd R5e and have thus far almost entirely failed to deliver on.
The sad thing is if WOTC was even planning on expanding the simple rules into more complex ones why have they not done it? You would think they would have a team on this full time from the start. They could have been looking in places like this forum for ideas or even answers to those ideas. Questions to answer could come from here.
They could have another group of play testers around the world. Groups contracted to secrecy who would play test the new but unpublished content.
They might have agreed to expand the rules 10 years ago but never found the manpower to get it started. And it is the manpower that spends the time doing something. They could have been stopped by that thing called a budget. No money to hire a new team and no desire to reduce the old teams size to form a new team. Not a single one of these books is published with less than 5 years of planning and work. And quite frankly some of them do not reflect 5 years of work.
A multi million dollar publishing company who can not afford to keep enough teams running in order to produce content to publish is REALLY working hard at squeezing out every penny of profit. And if they are not very careful that starts to effect the down stream content. Quality and quantity drops off.
It's a problem from a gamist perspective as it breaks the suspended reality for players. If I make a Wizard character who is a master of lore and magic, I've defined a role for myself in the campaign, in the story and in the party through my backstory writing and linking that to my mechanical selections. If someone makes a Bard who is better or my equal at all those things, it breaks the emersion. It means being a master of lore and magic isn't a special thing.. anyone can do it, you don't even need to be a Wizard!
This type of infringement might not seem like a problem on paper, but it's a game-breaking, group-dividing problem at the table.
I understand that the game needs to have a broader set of options than old school D&D's firm archetyping, I'm not disputing that, but if your going to add a new class or series of options for a class, it should be something new, not a replication of something that already exists as an option for other classes. For example If a Ranger gets a pet as a sidekick as an option, don't also give that option to the Barbarian and Druid.
Selecting an option in the game should always be a unique element of the game.
5e often sticks to this program, but it also breaks this premise far too frequently and often, when they create something new they do it to the detriment of some other options.. meaning they create an option that already exist but make it better, making the old option obsolete. So it would be like giving the Ranger a Sidekick, which is something that makes the Ranger unique but than creating the same option for the Barbarian but making their sidekick way better.. at that point, you have broken the game.
This sort of thing is what the game needs to avoid but it is not avoidable if you are just going to pile on more and more options all the time. There is a limit of what the game can support, only so many variations you can create before you start repeating stuff and we are at that point. Wait until you see the new class options in the Dragonlance book.. it effectively makes certain classes in the players handbook obsolete. Simply put, its the same options, just superior in every way.
The only problem I can agree that you identified is that it sucks to have characters overlapping heavily at a table. But that's not an issue you solve by creating super specialized niche protection. It's a problem you solve by double checking with your other players what they're going to play, because if everyone is making a loremaster it's going to kinda suck.
But the idea that one specific class should have ownership over some whole aspect of the game seems genuinely awful and toxic, and it's what leads to groups feeling like they're 'forced' to bring along certain characters in the worst possible way. You talk about wanting classes to be unique, but these examples reduce uniqueness to the most mundane and banal components. What makes a rogue a rogue? Is it their unique and compelling mechanics? Interesting flavor? Special abilities? No, just make it so you can't function properly in a dungeon without them.
You talk about player creativity being stifled, but this seems so much worse in terms of limiting options. I don't think the issues about imagination and creativity here have anything to do with 5e.
... The way you keep framing this as modern D&D ruining the franchise is a bit incorrect too, the OD&D thief couldn't actually detect traps and only had very limited abilities when it came to disarming them. They also emphatically were not the only way to handle traps. The idea of hyperspecialized niche protection has not existed for most of D&D and even when such mechanics have been around, they've mostly been in fairly limited ways.
It seems like a no-brainer to me that every class should be construct-able by complex system of rules and character options, that each class is some end result of a particular spattering of those chosen options. And represented as the default options for players to choose from so they needn't build their own if they don't want to. But then also offer the complex system used to generate those classes as a more in-depth system for those people who do enjoy tinkering behind the scenes and complex character creation.
Gee, I wonder where someone could have gotten the idea that you want to make a system without classes.
I agree with you on some parts of your argument, but definitely not this one.
I want a system that can operate without classes, and that is something D&D can definitely do, and I want that option be officially available. Breaking down classes and subclasses to a collection of feats is not all that revolutionary, and that is already somewhat present in the current game with stuff like Artificer Initiate, Magic Initiate, Fighting Initiate, Eldritch Adept, Martial Adept, etc. I want D&D to go a step further and treat class features like feats, and allow us to build and mix and match something of our own.
For people who want something simple or traditional, they can stick with out-of-the-box classes and subclasses. Hell, if they really want simple-simple, they can play with sidekicks. But for players like me who want something more, I want a system in place that allows us to mix-and-match class features, feats, boons, background features, and all other game mechanics. If I were to play a wizard, I want to play a wizard that is truly peerless in magic: learn any spell in the game; have access to metamagic to change and modify spells; and be so coked up in magic that I get all my spell points (not a fan of spell slots) back on a short rest.
It seems like a no-brainer to me that every class should be construct-able by complex system of rules and character options, that each class is some end result of a particular spattering of those chosen options. And represented as the default options for players to choose from so they needn't build their own if they don't want to. But then also offer the complex system used to generate those classes as a more in-depth system for those people who do enjoy tinkering behind the scenes and complex character creation.
Gee, I wonder where someone could have gotten the idea that you want to make a system without classes.
I agree with you on some parts of your argument, but definitely not this one.
Its a bizarre thing this whole modern era of D&D players has brought. They come to a game, don't like anything about it and insist it be changed to be something else when what they want already exists in other games... just go play GURPS, that is literally the system being described here.
I am not sure how others players like me feel, but I do not care about the traditions of D&D, but at the same time, I am not here trying to change how you play either. I just want the OPTION of being able to play how I want to play. Wizards have already catered to you; I want Wizards to cater to me too. Wizards can cater to multiple types of players at the same time. I mean, D&D literally caters to murderhobos, dungeon crawlers, arena gladiators, horror enthusiasts, Critical Rollers, and more all at the same time, and no one bats an eye besides a few elitist snobs here and there, and we can all agree to bag them in a portable hole and then shove them into another one. We have optional rules that replaces spell slots with spell points, got feats and epic boons, change how we track our level progression, customize our origins, etc. and we are all still fine and alive.
You can still play with classes and subclasses if you want. That is still the default option, and that is probably what most people would prefer too, so you have literally nothing to lose, besides GMs and players like me who probably would not want to play with you anyways due to differences in our tastes and preferences. GMs and players like me on the other hand will finally have a common system in place to do the shit that we really want to do. At least on paper anyways, because Beyond honestly is not implementing spell points anytime soon, let alone mix-and-match class features. Players like me just need a common official language in place to communicate with each other, so we do not have to make up a new homebrew language every time we meet a new player like us.
Telling D&D players who want more options to play GURPS is like telling classical Latin students who just happen to be Catholic but does not give a **** about church Latin to learn Esperanto. It is not helpful, nor practical, nor realistic. Players choose D&D for a reason, just as students choose to learn classical Latin for a reason, whatever their reasons are. For me at least, I choose and stick with D&D because it is the most common language, so in turn, it is easier to find people to play with. You cannot walk down the street and speak to people in GURPS expecting someone to understand you. But, you can walk down the street and speak D&D, and after a really long time, you will eventually find someone that understands you.
It seems like a no-brainer to me that every class should be construct-able by complex system of rules and character options, that each class is some end result of a particular spattering of those chosen options. And represented as the default options for players to choose from so they needn't build their own if they don't want to. But then also offer the complex system used to generate those classes as a more in-depth system for those people who do enjoy tinkering behind the scenes and complex character creation.
Gee, I wonder where someone could have gotten the idea that you want to make a system without classes.
I agree with you on some parts of your argument, but definitely not this one.
I want a system that can operate without classes, and that is something D&D can definitely do, and I want that option be officially available. Breaking down classes and subclasses to a collection of feats is not all that revolutionary, and that is already somewhat present in the current game with stuff like Artificer Initiate, Magic Initiate, Fighting Initiate, Eldritch Adept, Martial Adept, etc. I want D&D to go a step further and treat class features like feats, and allow us to build and mix and match something of our own.
For people who want something simple or traditional, they can stick with out-of-the-box classes and subclasses. Hell, if they really want simple-simple, they can play with sidekicks. But for players like me who want something more, I want a system in place that allows us to mix-and-match class features, feats, boons, background features, and all other game mechanics. If I were to play a wizard, I want to play a wizard that is truly peerless in magic: learn any spell in the game; have access to metamagic to change and modify spells; and be so coked up in magic that I get all my spell points (not a fan of spell slots) back on a short rest.
It seems like a no-brainer to me that every class should be construct-able by complex system of rules and character options, that each class is some end result of a particular spattering of those chosen options. And represented as the default options for players to choose from so they needn't build their own if they don't want to. But then also offer the complex system used to generate those classes as a more in-depth system for those people who do enjoy tinkering behind the scenes and complex character creation.
Gee, I wonder where someone could have gotten the idea that you want to make a system without classes.
I agree with you on some parts of your argument, but definitely not this one.
Its a bizarre thing this whole modern era of D&D players has brought. They come to a game, don't like anything about it and insist it be changed to be something else when what they want already exists in other games... just go play GURPS, that is literally the system being described here.
I am not sure how others players like me feel, but I do not care about the traditions of D&D, but at the same time, I am not here trying to change how you play either. I just want the OPTION of being able to play how I want to play. Wizards have already catered to you; I want Wizards to cater to me too. Wizards can cater to multiple types of players at the same time. I mean, D&D literally caters to murderhobos, dungeon crawlers, arena gladiators, horror enthusiasts, Critical Rollers, and more all at the same time, and no one bats an eye besides a few elitist snobs here and there, and we can all agree to bag them in a portable hole and then shove them into another one. We have optional rules that replaces spell slots with spell points, got feats and epic boons, change how we track our level progression, customize our origins, etc. and we are all still fine and alive.
You can still play with classes and subclasses if you want. That is still the default option, and that is probably what most people would prefer too, so you have literally nothing to lose, besides GMs and players like me who probably would not want to play with you anyways due to differences in our tastes and preferences. GMs and players like me on the other hand will finally have a common system in place to do the shit that we really want to do. At least on paper anyways, because Beyond honestly is not implementing spell points anytime soon, let alone mix-and-match class features. Players like me just need a common official language in place to communicate with each other, so we do not have to make up a new homebrew language every time we meet a new player like us.
Telling D&D players who want more options to play GURPS is like telling classical Latin students who just happen to be Catholic but does not give a **** about church Latin to learn Esperanto. It is not helpful, nor practical, nor realistic. Players choose D&D for a reason, just as students choose to learn classical Latin for a reason, whatever their reasons are. For me at least, I choose and stick with D&D because it is the most common language, so in turn, it is easier to find people to play with. You cannot walk down the street and speak to people in GURPS expecting someone to understand you. But, you can walk down the street and speak D&D, and after a really long time, you will eventually find someone that understands you.
I don't know why you quoted me making a completely separate comment to a completely separate person regarding a mostly separate issue. If you actually want my input, look at my arguments listed on post #78.
I'd like to throw in that you're just wrong. NOBODY chooses to learn classical Latin for a reason. Also, the analogy gets pretty poor when you go with the classic "walking down the street talking classical Latin means more people will understand you than if you walked down the street talking Esperanto" argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
IMHO wide open character gen can be fun but it takes a lot of work on the back end to make it so and keep it so. I have found that fan material over time often drifts up the over all power so it often makes the earlier material have less value or if a pre req system is in place if makes things super valuable. I have not seen one that is as simple as 5e is though that does not have logic holes or down right strange rulings (often times to be different from the past version).
I don't know why you quoted me making a completely separate comment to a completely separate person regarding a mostly separate issue. If you actually want my input, look at my arguments listed on post #78.
I'd like to throw in that you're just wrong. NOBODY chooses to learn classical Latin for a reason. Also, the analogy gets pretty poor when you go with the classic "walking down the street talking classical Latin means more people will understand you than if you walked down the street talking Esperanto" argument.
I am quoting you because it seems like you do not want D&D to give players like me the official option to play how we want. While the system has a made a few steps in the right direction, I gave an example why it is not enough to satisfy me. Metamagic Initiate is nice, but it is nowhere near the level of Metamagic as a class feature. I just do not see the point in resisting against someone else's fun when it really does not affect you. No one is forcing you to play with more depth and complexity, just as no one is forcing you to use spell points, feats, custom origins, or floating racial ASIs. If you want rigid classes and subclasses, those options will still be there in a system that can accomodate classlessness.
People can choose to learn classical Latin because it sounds awesome and bad ass? It is has the glamor and prestige of Rome at its height of power? It is generally more fun to LARP as a Roman legionnaire than preaching at a rennaisance faire? It is the language of science and high culture? It is Latin without all the baggage and "pollution" that Christainity brings? When I was a high school student, my top two picks were LATIN and 日本語, but my ghetto-ass school had neither, so I went with plain old Español.
I think the issue really is that you can't ask designers to re-design the game to fit a new desire from the player base, while remaining traditional. The two concepts are kind of incompatible.
But the thing is that it is having a classless system is entirely doable in the current edition. We can already somewhat customize our experience by multiclassing, and some feats are basically just multiclassing without actually multiclassing. It really is not that far of a stretch to just go all the way and break classes and subclasses completely down to their individual features, and let players mix and match what they like.
D&D already caters to a wide variety of campaign styles. Catering to differences in mechanical preferences really should not be that big of a deal. As long as you are not harming or killing people or something, I literally do not care how you run your game. I just do not see why you care about Wizards offering us a bone and letting us play how we want.
Its a really weird thing in the D&D community, they act like the only RPG in the world is D&D and so it must be changed to be everything to everyone. It's why modern 5e D&D as Matt Colville described it in a recent video (and I agree with him whole heartedly) is a game about absolutely nothing.
D&D is not the only language in the TTRPG world, but it is the lingua franca. It is like telling foreign international business and tech students who wants to learn English to go learn Spanish or Russian just because they complain about how stupid English spelling rules are. Telling them to learn another language is not helpful, practical, nor realistic. Unless they specifically want to specialize to work in a specific country or region, business and tech majors should probably stick with English if they want to do something internationally.
I do not have anything against GURPS in itself, but you honestly cannot tell people to go play GURPS when most people are having trouble finding others to play D&D with. Most also do not like being a GM, so they do not have the perk/luxury of naturally drawing in people to play even once they find somebody.
I don't know why you quoted me making a completely separate comment to a completely separate person regarding a mostly separate issue. If you actually want my input, look at my arguments listed on post #78.
I'd like to throw in that you're just wrong. NOBODY chooses to learn classical Latin for a reason. Also, the analogy gets pretty poor when you go with the classic "walking down the street talking classical Latin means more people will understand you than if you walked down the street talking Esperanto" argument.
I am quoting you because it seems like you do not want D&D to give players like me the official option to play how we want. While the system has a made a few steps in the right direction, I gave an example why it is not enough to satisfy me. Metamagic Initiate is nice, but it is nowhere near the level of Metamagic as a class feature. I just do not see the point in resisting against someone else's fun when it really does not affect you. No one is forcing you to play with more depth and complexity, just as no one is forcing you to use spell points, feats, custom origins, or floating racial ASIs. If you want rigid classes and subclasses, those options will still be there in a system that can accomodate classlessness.
People can choose to learn classical Latin because it sounds awesome and bad ass? It is has the glamor and prestige of Rome at its height of power? It is generally more fun to LARP as a Roman legionnaire than preaching at a rennaisance faire? It is the language of science and high culture? It is Latin without all the baggage and "pollution" that Christainity brings? When I was a high school student, my top two picks were LATIN and 日本語, but my ghetto-ass school had neither, so I went with plain old Español.
The post that you quoted was in no way saying what you seem to think. Ravnodaus was saying that he never said he wanted a classless system, I pointed him to where he pretty much just said he wanted a classless system.
Despite your misinterpretation of what I said, I actually do want to resist this. It would be diverting resources that could be used elsewhere to make a super complicated system barely anybody would use. It would create massive power divides between those who make their own classes and those who take the prebuilt ones. It would discourage new players who try and fail to make their own class. It would make the word "class" wholly meaningless. Oh, and all the other reasons I listed on post #78.
If a tree in a forest sounds awesome and badass, but it's speaking Latin so nobody can understand it, does it really sound badass at all? I don't see why you find the only flaw in learning Latin to be "Christianity" (whatever you mean by that), instead of the fact that its only real uses are school mottos, reading currency, and apparently LARPing (incoherently). Maybe it WAS the language of science and high culture a bajillion years ago, and I guess you could still translate every essay you plan on reading into Latin before you read them, but times have changed. The usefulness of Spanish definitely depends on where you live, but it will always be more useful than Latin.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The sad thing is if WOTC was even planning on expanding the simple rules into more complex ones why have they not done it? You would think they would have a team on this full time from the start. They could have been looking in places like this forum for ideas or even answers to those ideas. Questions to answer could come from here.
They simplified the rules in moving to 5E. It seems like it was a specific design aim NOT to include all the complex rules from earlier editions.
But the thing is that it is having a classless system is entirely doable in the current edition. We can already somewhat customize our experience by multiclassing, and some feats are basically just multiclassing without actually multiclassing. It really is not that far of a stretch to just go all the way and break classes and subclasses completely down to their individual features, and let players mix and match what they like.
D&D already caters to a wide variety of campaign styles. Catering to differences in mechanical preferences really should not be that big of a deal. As long as you are not harming or killing people or something, I literally do not care how you run your game. I just do not see why you care about Wizards offering us a bone and letting us play how we want.
That is the point though, Wizards of the Coast is not offering the game I want to play at all. It's physically painful to try to twist 5e to be the game I want to play at this stage unless you totally cut out pretty much everything but the core rulebooks and even then its far from good, yet oddly the game I want to play is the one it has been for decades and multiple editions. I want to play ... well D&D.. We are now instead of catering to people who want to play the game it has been for decades are instead catering to people who hate that game with a deep seeded passion to such a point that they hate people like me for liking it in its original form and premise (noting some of the insults levied against me). Instead, they want to turn D&D into something completely different, unrecognizable as D&D, which odder still is a type of game other companies have already produced, notably with very questionable success.
I agree with your main thought here.
The only reason the classless systems have questionable success is because without clearly defined roles (classes/races) it is far more difficult for NEW players to figure out how to start in those game systems. Classes allow new players to quickly get into the game without spending a lot of time working out how to build their ideal character.
This is no longer a thread about complexity pitted against simplicity. This thread has been threadjacked to complain about Modern Players Ruining D&D Forever, like so many threads before it. Recommend pulling it back on course or abandoning it.
Despite your misinterpretation of what I said, I actually do want to resist this. It would be diverting resources that could be used elsewhere to make a super complicated system barely anybody would use. It would create massive power divides between those who make their own classes and those who take the prebuilt ones. It would discourage new players who try and fail to make their own class. It would make the word "class" wholly meaningless. Oh, and all the other reasons I listed on post #78.
Diverting resources from what exactly? I want an optional rule allowing us to treat class features like feats so I can build whatever I want. This is honestly not much more complicated than asking for the dumb level limit to be removed, or be allowed to multiclass into the same class and subclass to obtain additional options that were missed in the first run through.
And what is wrong with a massive power divide? We already have at least three different ways to progress in experience/levels and three different rest modes that can cause a huge gap in power between characters if each player decides to use a different option. Most tables simply avoid the issue by having everyone use the same way to track progress and utilize the same rest mode. Just as you can refuse to allow multiclassing, feats, and spell points, you can refuse to allow players to build their own class.
I do not see how this would scare away new players. The first D&D "book" that new players should be exposed to is the BR/SRD, and NOT the PHB (let alone the DMG, where most of the optional rules are found). If you are not going to throw the Legendary Bundle info dump at new players, then you are also sensible enough to not throw them free form class creation at their first session zero.
If a tree in a forest sounds awesome and badass, but it's speaking Latin so nobody can understand it, does it really sound badass at all? I don't see why you find the only flaw in learning Latin to be "Christianity" (whatever you mean by that), instead of the fact that its only real uses are school mottos, reading currency, and apparently LARPing (incoherently). Maybe it WAS the language of science and high culture a bajillion years ago, and I guess you could still translate every essay you plan on reading into Latin before you read them, but times have changed. The usefulness of Spanish definitely depends on where you live, but it will always be more useful than Latin.
I do not care what you think of classical Latin, and I do not need your approval and validation of what language I think is cool or not. I do not care about liturgical Latin because it has religious baggage and it just does not sound as "clean".
The point I am making is that I do not care about what you think. I just want you to please move out the way so I can get what I want. You have already ordered your Big Mac combo, so I am not sure why you are so against me ordering the Land-Sea-and-Sky burger. We do not even eat together. Your Big Mac is not going to go anywhere just because McDonald's is indulging me with a menu monstrosity. Hell, I am the one assembling the damn thing anyways, not the food prep, and my order is literally after your order, so it is not like it would affect you regardless.
That is the point though, Wizards of the Coast is not offering the game I want to play at all. It's physically painful to try to twist 5e to be the game I want to play at this stage unless you totally cut out pretty much everything but the core rulebooks and even then its far from good, yet oddly the game I want to play is the one it has been for decades and multiple editions. I want to play ... well D&D.. We are now instead of catering to people who want to play the game it has been for decades are instead catering to people who hate that game with a deep seeded passion to such a point that they hate people like me for liking it in its original form and premise (noting some of the insults levied against me). Instead, they want to turn D&D into something completely different, unrecognizable as D&D, which odder still is a type of game other companies have already produced, notably with very questionable success.
If you want to play with just the three core rule books, then DO SO!!! I am not holding you back nor telling you no, you should totally go for it and do you. I just will not play with you, but that is honestly not a bad idea so we would not drive each other crazy.
The beauty of 5e is that it is flexible. We can all have our cake and eat it too with OPTIONAL rules! You care about classes and traditions? Good for you, cause you have it! I want complexity and freedom? Well, good for me because I am a GM who can just homebrew, but players like me are shit out of luck at the mercy of finding the right GM, and GMs and players like me still have to go through a process of building that homebrew language every time we change people because there is no official language we can rely on as the lingua franca.
It seems like a no-brainer to me that every class should be construct-able by complex system of rules and character options, that each class is some end result of a particular spattering of those chosen options. And represented as the default options for players to choose from so they needn't build their own if they don't want to. But then also offer the complex system used to generate those classes as a more in-depth system for those people who do enjoy tinkering behind the scenes and complex character creation.
Gee, I wonder where someone could have gotten the idea that you want to make a system without classes.
I agree with you on some parts of your argument, but definitely not this one.
Yes. You caught me. Having a system to build classes means I dont want classes. /s
What are you even saying here? Im explicitly in favor of classes. Say as much. And then say i want a system by which to create more of them.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Despite your misinterpretation of what I said, I actually do want to resist this. It would be diverting resources that could be used elsewhere to make a super complicated system barely anybody would use. It would create massive power divides between those who make their own classes and those who take the prebuilt ones. It would discourage new players who try and fail to make their own class. It would make the word "class" wholly meaningless. Oh, and all the other reasons I listed on post #78.
Diverting resources from what exactly? I want an optional rule allowing us to treat class features like feats so I can build whatever I want. This is honestly not much more complicated than asking for the dumb level limit to be removed, or be allowed to multiclass into the same class and subclass to obtain additional options that were missed in the first run through.
And what is wrong with a massive power divide? We already have at least three different ways to progress in experience/levels and three different rest modes that can cause a huge gap in power between characters if each player decides to use a different option. Most tables simply avoid the issue by having everyone use the same way to track progress and utilize the same rest mode. Just as you can refuse to allow multiclassing, feats, and spell points, you can refuse to allow players to build their own class.
I do not see how this would scare away new players. The first D&D "book" that new players should be exposed to is the BR/SRD, and NOT the PHB (let alone the DMG, where most of the optional rules are found). If you are not going to throw the Legendary Bundle info dump at new players, then you are also sensible enough to not throw them free form class creation at their first session zero.
If a tree in a forest sounds awesome and badass, but it's speaking Latin so nobody can understand it, does it really sound badass at all? I don't see why you find the only flaw in learning Latin to be "Christianity" (whatever you mean by that), instead of the fact that its only real uses are school mottos, reading currency, and apparently LARPing (incoherently). Maybe it WAS the language of science and high culture a bajillion years ago, and I guess you could still translate every essay you plan on reading into Latin before you read them, but times have changed. The usefulness of Spanish definitely depends on where you live, but it will always be more useful than Latin.
I do not care what you think of classical Latin, and I do not need your approval and validation of what language I think is cool or not. I do not care about liturgical Latin because it has religious baggage and it just does not sound as "clean".
The point I am making is that I do not care about what you think. I just want you to please move out the way so I can get what I want. You have already ordered your Big Mac combo, so I am not sure why you are so against me ordering the Land-Sea-and-Sky burger. We do not even eat together. Your Big Mac is not going to go anywhere just because McDonald's is indulging me with a menu monstrosity. Hell, I am the one assembling the damn thing anyways, not the food prep, and my order is literally after your order, so it is not like it would affect you regardless.
Making the system which you claim "hurts nobody" would divert resources from the parts of the damn book that people will actually use. This is not "we can all have our cake and eat it too," this is "we can take some of your cake, put hot sauce on it, and then eat it." Sure, sometimes spreading the cake around is good and helps attract players, but when you're going to take so much of the cake for so few people it just isn't worth it. Honestly, at this point, go play GURPS. Sure, fewer people like the GURPS cake, but it's better to go with the cake that is already there and available than to take a part of somebody else's cake and turn it into a different cake. Your argument that GURPS is less popular is poot because this system (which is effectively a different game) would also be way less popular. You would have about as much luck convincing people to use this system as you would convincing them to play GURPS.
Many DMs allow multiclassing, and often a few players will multiclass when it is allowed, but the majority of people will stick with one class. It's perfectly viable to stick with one class for the whole campaign. If a DM allows your "I get absolutely everything I want" fiasco, then people will have the choice of either spending all the time necessary to make their own class or simply having the worst character in the group. That's not fun. Adding this option would detract from the majority of players to benefit very few.
PS: Multiclassing into the same class is a sentence that does not make sense. Just thought I would let you know.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It seems like a no-brainer to me that every class should be construct-able by complex system of rules and character options, that each class is some end result of a particular spattering of those chosen options. And represented as the default options for players to choose from so they needn't build their own if they don't want to. But then also offer the complex system used to generate those classes as a more in-depth system for those people who do enjoy tinkering behind the scenes and complex character creation.
Gee, I wonder where someone could have gotten the idea that you want to make a system without classes.
I agree with you on some parts of your argument, but definitely not this one.
Yes. You caught me. Having a system to build classes means I dont want classes. /s
What are you even saying here? Im explicitly in favor of classes. Say as much. And then say i want a system by which to create more of them.
???
Dungeons and Dragons has classes, but your suggestion makes those just samples. Just like backgrounds are basically gone in 1D&D, since nobody is going to say "I'm a Charlatan, which means I have +2 to to Charisma, +1 to Dexterity, and proficiency in gaming sets." No, they're going to say "I get a +2 to Charisma and a +1 to Dexterity" since there's no need to name it. Suddenly people would stop being Sorcerers and Bards and instead start being arcane casters with full Inspiration Dice at level 3, 1/3 metamagic starting at level 6, two spells from any list at level 13, d6 hit dice, proficiency in simple weapons and light armor, and uncanny dodge at level 15.
Let it be known that I've already said all of this, and I literally copy and pasted it from a previous post.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I want to answer both, because some players want simple characters, some players want complex characters, and some players have a preference for martial or spellcasting based on the character they want to roleplay, but that might not correlate with their preferred level of rules complexity.
I think 5e already does a pretty good job of this, with examples of relatively simple-to-play spellcasters like warlocks ("Eldritch Blast!") and martial classes that get once per short rest abilities that mean they can be pretty optimal doing the same two or three attacks each turn, but get to do one cool turn every couple fights.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have played RMSS and RM2 and MERP for a long time and it is a vastly different system then 5e. No classes per say but your class/profession defines how much skills cost with every one being able to buy most skills (later books had some skills that were tied to professions or skills), in RMSS some skills were simply too expensive for some professions to buy...but you could. As to max out some skills and buy some every 1-3 levels and then see what you have left and buy stuff, I agree that is the method I recommend to players with some changes at specific skill levels.
JoaT PC in RMSS was an important part of our games as they could help the primary if they were injured, low on spell points or maybe as a template idea for a new profession. But RMSS is vastly different from Rm2 and MERP is a subset of RM1 or RM2.
It's simple, really.
R5e does a relatively poor job of engaging players beyond a narrative level. The game has enough meat on its bones for newer players and players more concerned with Fluff than Crunch to happily play for many years, but as the explosion of third-party system content shows, there's a thriving market for more advanced and engaging rules that Wizards has, thus far, steadfastly refused to serve. Entire publishing companies exist (Hit Point and Kobold Presses, to name just two well-known and popular ones) to sell third-party Fifth Edition rules expansions and system boosters; they wouldn't exist if the game was as sublimely perfect as nay-sayers want to claim. There is absolutely room in the game for additional depth, granularity, and engagement, even if it has to come in the form of the optional rules overlays Wizards has been promising since they R'd R5e and have thus far almost entirely failed to deliver on.
Please do not contact or message me.
I agree with Yurei.
The sad thing is if WOTC was even planning on expanding the simple rules into more complex ones why have they not done it?
You would think they would have a team on this full time from the start. They could have been looking in places like this forum for ideas or even answers to those ideas. Questions to answer could come from here.
They could have another group of play testers around the world. Groups contracted to secrecy who would play test the new but unpublished content.
They might have agreed to expand the rules 10 years ago but never found the manpower to get it started. And it is the manpower that spends the time doing something. They could have been stopped by that thing called a budget. No money to hire a new team and no desire to reduce the old teams size to form a new team.
Not a single one of these books is published with less than 5 years of planning and work. And quite frankly some of them do not reflect 5 years of work.
A multi million dollar publishing company who can not afford to keep enough teams running in order to produce content to publish is REALLY working hard at squeezing out every penny of profit. And if they are not very careful that starts to effect the down stream content. Quality and quantity drops off.
The only problem I can agree that you identified is that it sucks to have characters overlapping heavily at a table. But that's not an issue you solve by creating super specialized niche protection. It's a problem you solve by double checking with your other players what they're going to play, because if everyone is making a loremaster it's going to kinda suck.
But the idea that one specific class should have ownership over some whole aspect of the game seems genuinely awful and toxic, and it's what leads to groups feeling like they're 'forced' to bring along certain characters in the worst possible way. You talk about wanting classes to be unique, but these examples reduce uniqueness to the most mundane and banal components. What makes a rogue a rogue? Is it their unique and compelling mechanics? Interesting flavor? Special abilities? No, just make it so you can't function properly in a dungeon without them.
You talk about player creativity being stifled, but this seems so much worse in terms of limiting options. I don't think the issues about imagination and creativity here have anything to do with 5e.
... The way you keep framing this as modern D&D ruining the franchise is a bit incorrect too, the OD&D thief couldn't actually detect traps and only had very limited abilities when it came to disarming them. They also emphatically were not the only way to handle traps. The idea of hyperspecialized niche protection has not existed for most of D&D and even when such mechanics have been around, they've mostly been in fairly limited ways.
I want a system that can operate without classes, and that is something D&D can definitely do, and I want that option be officially available. Breaking down classes and subclasses to a collection of feats is not all that revolutionary, and that is already somewhat present in the current game with stuff like Artificer Initiate, Magic Initiate, Fighting Initiate, Eldritch Adept, Martial Adept, etc. I want D&D to go a step further and treat class features like feats, and allow us to build and mix and match something of our own.
For people who want something simple or traditional, they can stick with out-of-the-box classes and subclasses. Hell, if they really want simple-simple, they can play with sidekicks. But for players like me who want something more, I want a system in place that allows us to mix-and-match class features, feats, boons, background features, and all other game mechanics. If I were to play a wizard, I want to play a wizard that is truly peerless in magic: learn any spell in the game; have access to metamagic to change and modify spells; and be so coked up in magic that I get all my spell points (not a fan of spell slots) back on a short rest.
I am not sure how others players like me feel, but I do not care about the traditions of D&D, but at the same time, I am not here trying to change how you play either. I just want the OPTION of being able to play how I want to play. Wizards have already catered to you; I want Wizards to cater to me too. Wizards can cater to multiple types of players at the same time. I mean, D&D literally caters to murderhobos, dungeon crawlers, arena gladiators, horror enthusiasts, Critical Rollers, and more all at the same time, and no one bats an eye besides a few elitist snobs here and there, and we can all agree to bag them in a portable hole and then shove them into another one. We have optional rules that replaces spell slots with spell points, got feats and epic boons, change how we track our level progression, customize our origins, etc. and we are all still fine and alive.
You can still play with classes and subclasses if you want. That is still the default option, and that is probably what most people would prefer too, so you have literally nothing to lose, besides GMs and players like me who probably would not want to play with you anyways due to differences in our tastes and preferences. GMs and players like me on the other hand will finally have a common system in place to do the shit that we really want to do. At least on paper anyways, because Beyond honestly is not implementing spell points anytime soon, let alone mix-and-match class features. Players like me just need a common official language in place to communicate with each other, so we do not have to make up a new homebrew language every time we meet a new player like us.
Telling D&D players who want more options to play GURPS is like telling classical Latin students who just happen to be Catholic but does not give a **** about church Latin to learn Esperanto. It is not helpful, nor practical, nor realistic. Players choose D&D for a reason, just as students choose to learn classical Latin for a reason, whatever their reasons are. For me at least, I choose and stick with D&D because it is the most common language, so in turn, it is easier to find people to play with. You cannot walk down the street and speak to people in GURPS expecting someone to understand you. But, you can walk down the street and speak D&D, and after a really long time, you will eventually find someone that understands you.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I don't know why you quoted me making a completely separate comment to a completely separate person regarding a mostly separate issue. If you actually want my input, look at my arguments listed on post #78.
I'd like to throw in that you're just wrong. NOBODY chooses to learn classical Latin for a reason. Also, the analogy gets pretty poor when you go with the classic "walking down the street talking classical Latin means more people will understand you than if you walked down the street talking Esperanto" argument.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Wide Open PC Gen:
IMHO wide open character gen can be fun but it takes a lot of work on the back end to make it so and keep it so. I have found that fan material over time often drifts up the over all power so it often makes the earlier material have less value or if a pre req system is in place if makes things super valuable. I have not seen one that is as simple as 5e is though that does not have logic holes or down right strange rulings (often times to be different from the past version).
I am quoting you because it seems like you do not want D&D to give players like me the official option to play how we want. While the system has a made a few steps in the right direction, I gave an example why it is not enough to satisfy me. Metamagic Initiate is nice, but it is nowhere near the level of Metamagic as a class feature. I just do not see the point in resisting against someone else's fun when it really does not affect you. No one is forcing you to play with more depth and complexity, just as no one is forcing you to use spell points, feats, custom origins, or floating racial ASIs. If you want rigid classes and subclasses, those options will still be there in a system that can accomodate classlessness.
People can choose to learn classical Latin because it sounds awesome and bad ass? It is has the glamor and prestige of Rome at its height of power? It is generally more fun to LARP as a Roman legionnaire than preaching at a rennaisance faire? It is the language of science and high culture? It is Latin without all the baggage and "pollution" that Christainity brings? When I was a high school student, my top two picks were LATIN and 日本語, but my ghetto-ass school had neither, so I went with plain old Español.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
But the thing is that it is having a classless system is entirely doable in the current edition. We can already somewhat customize our experience by multiclassing, and some feats are basically just multiclassing without actually multiclassing. It really is not that far of a stretch to just go all the way and break classes and subclasses completely down to their individual features, and let players mix and match what they like.
D&D already caters to a wide variety of campaign styles. Catering to differences in mechanical preferences really should not be that big of a deal. As long as you are not harming or killing people or something, I literally do not care how you run your game. I just do not see why you care about Wizards offering us a bone and letting us play how we want.
D&D is not the only language in the TTRPG world, but it is the lingua franca. It is like telling foreign international business and tech students who wants to learn English to go learn Spanish or Russian just because they complain about how stupid English spelling rules are. Telling them to learn another language is not helpful, practical, nor realistic. Unless they specifically want to specialize to work in a specific country or region, business and tech majors should probably stick with English if they want to do something internationally.
I do not have anything against GURPS in itself, but you honestly cannot tell people to go play GURPS when most people are having trouble finding others to play D&D with. Most also do not like being a GM, so they do not have the perk/luxury of naturally drawing in people to play even once they find somebody.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
The post that you quoted was in no way saying what you seem to think. Ravnodaus was saying that he never said he wanted a classless system, I pointed him to where he pretty much just said he wanted a classless system.
Despite your misinterpretation of what I said, I actually do want to resist this. It would be diverting resources that could be used elsewhere to make a super complicated system barely anybody would use. It would create massive power divides between those who make their own classes and those who take the prebuilt ones. It would discourage new players who try and fail to make their own class. It would make the word "class" wholly meaningless. Oh, and all the other reasons I listed on post #78.
If a tree in a forest sounds awesome and badass, but it's speaking Latin so nobody can understand it, does it really sound badass at all? I don't see why you find the only flaw in learning Latin to be "Christianity" (whatever you mean by that), instead of the fact that its only real uses are school mottos, reading currency, and apparently LARPing (incoherently). Maybe it WAS the language of science and high culture a bajillion years ago, and I guess you could still translate every essay you plan on reading into Latin before you read them, but times have changed. The usefulness of Spanish definitely depends on where you live, but it will always be more useful than Latin.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
They simplified the rules in moving to 5E. It seems like it was a specific design aim NOT to include all the complex rules from earlier editions.
I agree with your main thought here.
The only reason the classless systems have questionable success is because without clearly defined roles (classes/races) it is far more difficult for NEW players to figure out how to start in those game systems. Classes allow new players to quickly get into the game without spending a lot of time working out how to build their ideal character.
This is no longer a thread about complexity pitted against simplicity. This thread has been threadjacked to complain about Modern Players Ruining D&D Forever, like so many threads before it. Recommend pulling it back on course or abandoning it.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah, in all honesty, I must confess that I have no idea what is happening in this thread anymore. It has really gone off the rails.
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.Diverting resources from what exactly? I want an optional rule allowing us to treat class features like feats so I can build whatever I want. This is honestly not much more complicated than asking for the dumb level limit to be removed, or be allowed to multiclass into the same class and subclass to obtain additional options that were missed in the first run through.
And what is wrong with a massive power divide? We already have at least three different ways to progress in experience/levels and three different rest modes that can cause a huge gap in power between characters if each player decides to use a different option. Most tables simply avoid the issue by having everyone use the same way to track progress and utilize the same rest mode. Just as you can refuse to allow multiclassing, feats, and spell points, you can refuse to allow players to build their own class.
I do not see how this would scare away new players. The first D&D "book" that new players should be exposed to is the BR/SRD, and NOT the PHB (let alone the DMG, where most of the optional rules are found). If you are not going to throw the Legendary Bundle info dump at new players, then you are also sensible enough to not throw them free form class creation at their first session zero.
I do not care what you think of classical Latin, and I do not need your approval and validation of what language I think is cool or not. I do not care about liturgical Latin because it has religious baggage and it just does not sound as "clean".
The point I am making is that I do not care about what you think. I just want you to please move out the way so I can get what I want. You have already ordered your Big Mac combo, so I am not sure why you are so against me ordering the Land-Sea-and-Sky burger. We do not even eat together. Your Big Mac is not going to go anywhere just because McDonald's is indulging me with a menu monstrosity. Hell, I am the one assembling the damn thing anyways, not the food prep, and my order is literally after your order, so it is not like it would affect you regardless.
If you want to play with just the three core rule books, then DO SO!!! I am not holding you back nor telling you no, you should totally go for it and do you. I just will not play with you, but that is honestly not a bad idea so we would not drive each other crazy.
The beauty of 5e is that it is flexible. We can all have our cake and eat it too with OPTIONAL rules! You care about classes and traditions? Good for you, cause you have it! I want complexity and freedom? Well, good for me because I am a GM who can just homebrew, but players like me are shit out of luck at the mercy of finding the right GM, and GMs and players like me still have to go through a process of building that homebrew language every time we change people because there is no official language we can rely on as the lingua franca.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Yes. You caught me. Having a system to build classes means I dont want classes. /s
What are you even saying here? Im explicitly in favor of classes. Say as much. And then say i want a system by which to create more of them.
???
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Making the system which you claim "hurts nobody" would divert resources from the parts of the damn book that people will actually use. This is not "we can all have our cake and eat it too," this is "we can take some of your cake, put hot sauce on it, and then eat it." Sure, sometimes spreading the cake around is good and helps attract players, but when you're going to take so much of the cake for so few people it just isn't worth it. Honestly, at this point, go play GURPS. Sure, fewer people like the GURPS cake, but it's better to go with the cake that is already there and available than to take a part of somebody else's cake and turn it into a different cake. Your argument that GURPS is less popular is poot because this system (which is effectively a different game) would also be way less popular. You would have about as much luck convincing people to use this system as you would convincing them to play GURPS.
Many DMs allow multiclassing, and often a few players will multiclass when it is allowed, but the majority of people will stick with one class. It's perfectly viable to stick with one class for the whole campaign. If a DM allows your "I get absolutely everything I want" fiasco, then people will have the choice of either spending all the time necessary to make their own class or simply having the worst character in the group. That's not fun. Adding this option would detract from the majority of players to benefit very few.
PS: Multiclassing into the same class is a sentence that does not make sense. Just thought I would let you know.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Dungeons and Dragons has classes, but your suggestion makes those just samples. Just like backgrounds are basically gone in 1D&D, since nobody is going to say "I'm a Charlatan, which means I have +2 to to Charisma, +1 to Dexterity, and proficiency in gaming sets." No, they're going to say "I get a +2 to Charisma and a +1 to Dexterity" since there's no need to name it. Suddenly people would stop being Sorcerers and Bards and instead start being arcane casters with full Inspiration Dice at level 3, 1/3 metamagic starting at level 6, two spells from any list at level 13, d6 hit dice, proficiency in simple weapons and light armor, and uncanny dodge at level 15.
Let it be known that I've already said all of this, and I literally copy and pasted it from a previous post.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
At what point to you stop adding complexity?
I want to answer both, because some players want simple characters, some players want complex characters, and some players have a preference for martial or spellcasting based on the character they want to roleplay, but that might not correlate with their preferred level of rules complexity.
I think 5e already does a pretty good job of this, with examples of relatively simple-to-play spellcasters like warlocks ("Eldritch Blast!") and martial classes that get once per short rest abilities that mean they can be pretty optimal doing the same two or three attacks each turn, but get to do one cool turn every couple fights.