We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want.
These two statements are incompatible.
No they aren't. You can still play a "simple" Fighter complexly via feats, backgrounds, and subclasses. On the other hand, a new player can't play any class they want if you've made half the classes so complicated that it takes years for someone just to understand the basics of how they work.
Unless One D&D vastly revises their method of making feats and subclasses (backgrounds... are not added complexity), which there's no evidence for them doing, there simply isn't sufficient design space to allow significant complexity. The subclasses we've seen give a total of four features, of which most players only see two, and given that the standard is pretty close to "one feature per level", there's no real way to change that without removing features from the base class.
However, if you're really concerned about those poor new players.. why aren't you pushing to make spellcasters easier to play?The fair way to set it up would be:
Low end of complexity for martial classes should be the same complexity as low end for spellcasters.
High end of complexity for martial classes should be the same complexity as high end for spellcasters.
The reality is, the low end of complexity for casters (probably the eldritch blast warlock) is mid to high complexity by standards of martial classes, and there are zero martial classes that even approach the complexity of a bard, cleric, druid, or wizard.
We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want.
These two statements are incompatible.
No they aren't. You can still play a "simple" Fighter complexly via feats, backgrounds, and subclasses. On the other hand, a new player can't play any class they want if you've made half the classes so complicated that it takes years for someone just to understand the basics of how they work.
Unless One D&D vastly revises their method of making feats and subclasses (backgrounds... are not added complexity), which there's no evidence for them doing, there simply isn't sufficient design space to allow significant complexity. The subclasses we've seen give a total of four features, of which most players only see two, and given that the standard is pretty close to "one feature per level", there's no real way to change that without removing features from the base class.
There is no compelling need for more complexity, especially when you are talking about the most popular class in the game!
We already have a higher end complexity fighter available through the more complex subclasses, there is no reason the highest complexity fighter needs to be as complex as the highest complexity Cleric or Wizard or Warlock, just like there is no reason the simplest build from those classes needs to be as simple as the simplest build from the fighter.
The other classes have more complexity, play those classes if you want that or don't if you don't.
We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want.
These two statements are incompatible.
No they aren't. You can play the fighter if you want. If you don't like that class because it is not complex enough for you then you can play another class that is more complex.
It is really that simple!
More complexity does not automatically mean a better game. We KNOW that from 3E. More balance does not automatically mean a better game. We KNOW that from 4E. We also know that 5E as it is is VASTLY popular and fun without striving for either more complexity or more balance than it currently has.
We also can surmise from the Expert ONE playtest that the simple classes will probably get more simple and that will likely lead to more disparity and more imbalance. That is the way the game seems to be going.
You want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster, and you want martial classes to be the exclusive purview of brand new players. We. Get. It. The people who ACTUALLY work with data in their day-to-day don't know anything about data, the DDB materials are absolutely 100% laws-of-physics level true, and we should just outright eliminate the warlock, the wizard, the artificer, and the druid from the game because Simple is Best and anyone who wants more from the game than HITTIN' STICK is not only objectively wrong but also actively malicious and likely criminally liable for something.
Holy goddamn moosecracker banana ****whistles, why am I still here?
If that is what you think I want, then you really don't "get it". I don't "want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster," all I want is for you to not rip the simplicity out of Fighter. You can literally have all the complexity you want in any other class.
We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want.
These two statements are incompatible.
No they aren't. You can still play the "simple" Fighter complexly via feats, backgrounds, and subclasses. On the other hand, a new player can't play any class they want if you've made half the classes so complicated that it takes years for someone just to understand the basics of how they work.
What other class. There are three warrior group classes, Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk. If a player wants to play a martial character without magic they have to pick one of these three. (And that's been generous given monks Ki) You've already stated multiple times that it's unfair to force barbarian angry man flavor on to new players who might not want to be a raging Berserker. This goes both ways, you can't force advance the players into monks flavor if they want to play an advanced martial class. And obviously barbarian won't work for the same reasons it won't work for new players. And a fighter is reserved as the simple martial class then please explain where the advanced warrior group option is.
As for the second bold text Bard I think the Advance Bonk Group has made it perfectly clear that feats, background, and subclass don't work for them as a compromise. So you and the others on Team Simple Fighter need to start coming up with a different idea for a compromise or this will just continue to escalate.
So were all just going to ignore my suggestion about changing the barbarian.
What other class. There are three warrior group classes, Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk. If a player wants to play a martial character without magic they have to pick one of these three. (And that's been generous given monks Ki) You've already stated multiple times that it's unfair to force barbarian angry man flavor on to new players who might not want to be a raging Berserker. This goes both ways, you can't force advance the players into monks flavor if they want to play an advanced martial class. And obviously barbarian won't work for the same reasons it won't work for new players. And a fighter is reserved as the simple martial class then please explain where the advanced warrior group option is.
Both Fighter and Monk are "advanced warrior" class. A Battlemaster is a pretty advanced martial character without magic. The thing that really gets me about this argument though is you say a you want to play a character without magic, yet you need to play a character that can do physics defying complex things. Either you want supernatural or you don't, I don't get this argument.
A Fighter is not reserved as "simple" it is just not as complex as other classes and there is no reason it should be. You say you don't want magic .... fine then you don't get it.
If you want more complexity though there are many classes you can play. All the spell casting classes are there for you and you can even multiclass to have really complex builds. No one should be forcing you to play a fighter, no one should be forcing you to play a martial at all and if people are forcing you to play a martial or fighter when you want a more complex character then find a new table.
As for the second bold text Bard I think the Advance Bonk Group has made it perfectly clear that feats, background, and subclass don't work for them as a compromise. So you and the others on Team Simple Fighter need to start coming up with a different idea for a compromise or this will just continue to escalate.
Here is an idea if you want more complexity than a fighter can offer - play a Cleric or Wizard! There is no reason we need a more complex fighter when very complex options already there for everyone to pick.
If neither of those work for you (and I still don't understand why they wouldn't) then find some like minded individuals and homebrew something that does work for you. Just don't screw up the current game by adding either complexity or balance like earlier editions have to their detriment.
We owe it to ourselves to be honest. When someone says they want a class or subclass to be more "complex" they're really just saying they want more features to pick from. Features themselves aren't complex. They're just new toys for the player to, well, play with.
Classes with spellcasting are complex, by default, because every spell is a class feature. You get a ton of them, and they can be changed out from a master list fairly regularly.
Classes without spellcasting need other features to feel complex without ever actually approaching the complexity of a devoted spellcasting class. Classes like monk and rogue are excellent examples.
So, what do "basic bonk" classes, like the fighter, actually need to feel suitably complex? Something akin to battle master maneuvers is off the table. That's reserved for the subclass. And speaking of which, does the fighter chassis need this complexity, or can it come from the subclass?
Here is an idea if you want more complexity than a fighter can offer - play a Cleric or Wizard! There is no reason we need a more complex fighter when very complex options already there for everyone to pick.
There's a very simple answer to that: I don't want to play a cleric or a wizard. I do in fact want to hit things with swords, I just want to do it with style.
Here is an idea if you want more complexity than a fighter can offer - play a Cleric or Wizard! There is no reason we need a more complex fighter when very complex options already there for everyone to pick.
There's a very simple answer to that: I don't want to play a cleric or a wizard. I do in fact want to hit things with swords, I just want to do it with style.
Ok then you want to play a simpler class, by your own admission all you want to do is hit things with swords. Problem solved! You don't need new rules or mechanics for style - If you want to do it with style then hold your sword inverted like Ashoka or use a spring loaded scabard so your sword flys out of it ito your hand when you use your free action to draw it. Or sharpen the pommel and slash people with that side of it on your back hand second attack instead of using the blade. Style and thematics are free and can be added on any chassis.
By the way there are plenty of more complex swordswoman options including with Cleric, Warlock and Wizard as a matter of fact a Wizard can be one of the most effective "hit things with swords" character there is. They bring the cherished "complexity" while still having all the style options of the simpler fighter.
Well, a while back I said something along the lines of "There SHOULD be a simple fighter, just as there should be a simple arcane, divine, and primal caster. Likewise, there should be a more complex fighter." And then I sat back to see how well that would be received. As usual, the internet provided!
So, what do "basic bonk" classes, like the fighter, actually need to feel suitably complex? Something akin to battle master maneuvers is off the table. That's reserved for the subclass. And speaking of which, does the fighter chassis need this complexity, or can it come from the subclass?
I gave my thoughts on this already: I would want choices at every odd level. And these should come from unique lists, not just "pick 2 more options from the same list". The same as casters, in other words.
The current fighter gets a meaningful choice at 1st level (fighting style). That is all. Yes, they get more feats than other classes, but as you are picking from the same list it is a case of diminishing returns. The playtest could imply that they are thinking of using Leveled feats, which is a good step in the right direction. Especially if they make a suite of Warrior specific feats, advanced fighting styles, etc.
On its own, this won't be enough; I would still like to see more options at certain levels. The most stark to me is level 9: when casters get fancy 5th level spells, fighters get to reroll a failed save once per day. This would need to be part of the base class, as subclasses don't allow for enough features.
It is also very simple to add choices while still maintaining the simplicity that many players prefer and enjoy. Include the old fighter features as options, and even list them as the suggested choices. "At 9th level, a fighter gets Indomitable or another feat of your choice."
We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want.
These two statements are incompatible.
No they aren't. You can still play a "simple" Fighter complexly via feats, backgrounds, and subclasses. On the other hand, a new player can't play any class they want if you've made half the classes so complicated that it takes years for someone just to understand the basics of how they work.
Unless One D&D vastly revises their method of making feats and subclasses (backgrounds... are not added complexity), which there's no evidence for them doing, there simply isn't sufficient design space to allow significant complexity. The subclasses we've seen give a total of four features, of which most players only see two, and given that the standard is pretty close to "one feature per level", there's no real way to change that without removing features from the base class.
However, if you're really concerned about those poor new players.. why aren't you pushing to make spellcasters easier to play?The fair way to set it up would be:
Low end of complexity for martial classes should be the same complexity as low end for spellcasters.
High end of complexity for martial classes should be the same complexity as high end for spellcasters.
The reality is, the low end of complexity for casters (probably the eldritch blast warlock) is mid to high complexity by standards of martial classes, and there are zero martial classes that even approach the complexity of a bard, cleric, druid, or wizard.
And with the proposed changes to centralized spell lists and classes only being able to access spells of certain schools, it looks like they are making the low-end and the high-end of caster complexity even more convoluted.
Here is an idea if you want more complexity than a fighter can offer - play a Cleric or Wizard! There is no reason we need a more complex fighter when very complex options already there for everyone to pick.
There's a very simple answer to that: I don't want to play a cleric or a wizard. I do in fact want to hit things with swords, I just want to do it with style.
Let me introduce you to the paladin, or swords bard, or swashbuckler, or hexblade, or spore Druid. There are any number of ways to hit things with swords with a variety of different styles. Or, you know, an eldritch knight, or an echo knight, or a rune knight if you are attached to hanging the fighter label on your stylish sword-hitting character.
Here is an idea if you want more complexity than a fighter can offer - play a Cleric or Wizard! There is no reason we need a more complex fighter when very complex options already there for everyone to pick.
There's a very simple answer to that: I don't want to play a cleric or a wizard. I do in fact want to hit things with swords, I just want to do it with style.
Let me introduce you to the paladin, or swords bard, or swashbuckler, or hexblade, or spore Druid. There are any number of ways to hit things with swords with a variety of different styles. Or, you know, an eldritch knight, or an echo knight, or a rune knight if you are attached to hanging the fighter label on your stylish sword-hitting character.
As has been stated, most PCs are lucky if they even get to smell their second subclass feature by the time a campaign ends, so subclasses cannot possible provide enough to really differentiate two fighters from each other 90% of the time. It’s just not possible. There needs to be something baked into the base class.
You want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster, and you want martial classes to be the exclusive purview of brand new players. We. Get. It. The people who ACTUALLY work with data in their day-to-day don't know anything about data, the DDB materials are absolutely 100% laws-of-physics level true, and we should just outright eliminate the warlock, the wizard, the artificer, and the druid from the game because Simple is Best and anyone who wants more from the game than HITTIN' STICK is not only objectively wrong but also actively malicious and likely criminally liable for something.
Holy goddamn moosecracker banana ****whistles, why am I still here?
If that is what you think I want, then you really don't "get it". I don't "want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster," all I want is for you to not rip the simplicity out of Fighter. You can literally have all the complexity you want in any other class.
We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want.
These two statements are incompatible.
No they aren't. You can still play the "simple" Fighter complexly via feats, backgrounds, and subclasses. On the other hand, a new player can't play any class they want if you've made half the classes so complicated that it takes years for someone just to understand the basics of how they work.
So , just to be clear that means you are 100% ok with the idea of making Barbarian a super complex class with a bunch of combat maneuvers and out of combat, maybe even shamanistic like abilities, while the fighter remains a simple hit it with a stick person?
You want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster, and you want martial classes to be the exclusive purview of brand new players. We. Get. It. The people who ACTUALLY work with data in their day-to-day don't know anything about data, the DDB materials are absolutely 100% laws-of-physics level true, and we should just outright eliminate the warlock, the wizard, the artificer, and the druid from the game because Simple is Best and anyone who wants more from the game than HITTIN' STICK is not only objectively wrong but also actively malicious and likely criminally liable for something.
Holy goddamn moosecracker banana ****whistles, why am I still here?
If that is what you think I want, then you really don't "get it". I don't "want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster," all I want is for you to not rip the simplicity out of Fighter. You can literally have all the complexity you want in any other class.
We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want.
These two statements are incompatible.
No they aren't. You can still play the "simple" Fighter complexly via feats, backgrounds, and subclasses. On the other hand, a new player can't play any class they want if you've made half the classes so complicated that it takes years for someone just to understand the basics of how they work.
So , just to be clear that means you are 100% ok with the idea of making Barbarian a super complex class with a bunch of combat maneuvers and out of combat, maybe even shamanistic like abilities, while the fighter remains a simple hit it with a stick person?
Yeah I do definitely find that strange. It should be barbarian which is the "hit stick class" of any of them. Whenever I see barbarian players they tend to like that fantasy of unstoppable, mindless, rage machine and not an intricate system. It tends to be fighter and monk players who want the complexity
As has been stated, most PCs are lucky if they even get to smell their second subclass feature by the time a campaign ends, so subclasses cannot possible provide enough to really differentiate two fighters from each other 90% of the time. It’s just not possible. There needs to be something baked into the base class.
I don't think this is true. All the published hardcovers go to at least level 8, which is enough to get 2 subclass features on all subclasses I think and most campaigns go beyond level 10.
You want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster, and you want martial classes to be the exclusive purview of brand new players. We. Get. It. The people who ACTUALLY work with data in their day-to-day don't know anything about data, the DDB materials are absolutely 100% laws-of-physics level true, and we should just outright eliminate the warlock, the wizard, the artificer, and the druid from the game because Simple is Best and anyone who wants more from the game than HITTIN' STICK is not only objectively wrong but also actively malicious and likely criminally liable for something.
Holy goddamn moosecracker banana ****whistles, why am I still here?
If that is what you think I want, then you really don't "get it". I don't "want the complexity ripped from the game and thrown in the Dumpster," all I want is for you to not rip the simplicity out of Fighter. You can literally have all the complexity you want in any other class.
We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want.
These two statements are incompatible.
No they aren't. You can still play the "simple" Fighter complexly via feats, backgrounds, and subclasses. On the other hand, a new player can't play any class they want if you've made half the classes so complicated that it takes years for someone just to understand the basics of how they work.
Except there is only three, maybe four builds of fighter using feats subclasses etc. And feats are an optional rule - what happens if the DM doesn’t allow feats in the name of ‘simplicity’
So, what do "basic bonk" classes, like the fighter, actually need to feel suitably complex? Something akin to battle master maneuvers is off the table. That's reserved for the subclass. And speaking of which, does the fighter chassis need this complexity, or can it come from the subclass?
Honestly, the complexity of the battle master is perfectly acceptable at level 3 (other than certain options being objectively terrible-- you can try doing a warlord with battle master maneuvers, its just that all of the leadership maneuvers suck), it's just that, well, that's pretty much it. You don't get better maneuvers at higher levels, just more of same.
We just want it kept out of the fighter and any player can play any class they want.
These two statements are incompatible.
No they aren't. You can play the fighter if you want. If you don't like that class because it is not complex enough for you then you can play another class that is more complex.
It is really that simple!
More complexity does not automatically mean a better game. We KNOW that from 3E. More balance does not automatically mean a better game. We KNOW that from 4E. We also know that 5E as it is is VASTLY popular and fun without striving for either more complexity or more balance than it currently has.
We also can surmise from the Expert ONE playtest that the simple classes will probably get more simple and that will likely lead to more disparity and more imbalance. That is the way the game seems to be going.
No. It is not. A different class, no matter how ‘martial’ you make it, is not a fighter. It doesn’t have action surge, or second wind, or the same amount of attacks, or the same hit points, or feat options, or armour proficiencies, or weapon proficiencies.
You are using exaggerated examples. The ‘complex fighter’ would not ruin the game to the extent of 4e.
We aren’t debating the way the game is going, we are debating the way it should go.
As has been stated, most PCs are lucky if they even get to smell their second subclass feature by the time a campaign ends, so subclasses cannot possible provide enough to really differentiate two fighters from each other 90% of the time. It’s just not possible. There needs to be something baked into the base class.
I don't think this is true. All the published hardcovers go to at least level 8, which is enough to get 2 subclass features on all subclasses I think and most campaigns go beyond level 10.
That doesn’t mean all campaigns last for the full duration. Working people especially will have huge scheduling issues, which can often bring a campaign grinding to a halt.
Flexible is not "there are many options". Flexible is "If I come up with a concept (without reference to the game system), I can play it".
You need options to play the concept you want. If you have a concept of a yellow shirt, but the only options you have are sweater and blue, you can't play it.
Unless One D&D vastly revises their method of making feats and subclasses (backgrounds... are not added complexity), which there's no evidence for them doing, there simply isn't sufficient design space to allow significant complexity. The subclasses we've seen give a total of four features, of which most players only see two, and given that the standard is pretty close to "one feature per level", there's no real way to change that without removing features from the base class.
However, if you're really concerned about those poor new players.. why aren't you pushing to make spellcasters easier to play?The fair way to set it up would be:
The reality is, the low end of complexity for casters (probably the eldritch blast warlock) is mid to high complexity by standards of martial classes, and there are zero martial classes that even approach the complexity of a bard, cleric, druid, or wizard.
There is no compelling need for more complexity, especially when you are talking about the most popular class in the game!
We already have a higher end complexity fighter available through the more complex subclasses, there is no reason the highest complexity fighter needs to be as complex as the highest complexity Cleric or Wizard or Warlock, just like there is no reason the simplest build from those classes needs to be as simple as the simplest build from the fighter.
The other classes have more complexity, play those classes if you want that or don't if you don't.
No they aren't. You can play the fighter if you want. If you don't like that class because it is not complex enough for you then you can play another class that is more complex.
It is really that simple!
More complexity does not automatically mean a better game. We KNOW that from 3E. More balance does not automatically mean a better game. We KNOW that from 4E. We also know that 5E as it is is VASTLY popular and fun without striving for either more complexity or more balance than it currently has.
We also can surmise from the Expert ONE playtest that the simple classes will probably get more simple and that will likely lead to more disparity and more imbalance. That is the way the game seems to be going.
So were all just going to ignore my suggestion about changing the barbarian.
What other class. There are three warrior group classes, Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk. If a player wants to play a martial character without magic they have to pick one of these three. (And that's been generous given monks Ki) You've already stated multiple times that it's unfair to force barbarian angry man flavor on to new players who might not want to be a raging Berserker. This goes both ways, you can't force advance the players into monks flavor if they want to play an advanced martial class. And obviously barbarian won't work for the same reasons it won't work for new players. And a fighter is reserved as the simple martial class then please explain where the advanced warrior group option is.
As for the second bold text Bard I think the Advance Bonk Group has made it perfectly clear that feats, background, and subclass don't work for them as a compromise. So you and the others on Team Simple Fighter need to start coming up with a different idea for a compromise or this will just continue to escalate.
Both Fighter and Monk are "advanced warrior" class. A Battlemaster is a pretty advanced martial character without magic. The thing that really gets me about this argument though is you say a you want to play a character without magic, yet you need to play a character that can do physics defying complex things. Either you want supernatural or you don't, I don't get this argument.
A Fighter is not reserved as "simple" it is just not as complex as other classes and there is no reason it should be. You say you don't want magic .... fine then you don't get it.
If you want more complexity though there are many classes you can play. All the spell casting classes are there for you and you can even multiclass to have really complex builds. No one should be forcing you to play a fighter, no one should be forcing you to play a martial at all and if people are forcing you to play a martial or fighter when you want a more complex character then find a new table.
Here is an idea if you want more complexity than a fighter can offer - play a Cleric or Wizard! There is no reason we need a more complex fighter when very complex options already there for everyone to pick.
If neither of those work for you (and I still don't understand why they wouldn't) then find some like minded individuals and homebrew something that does work for you. Just don't screw up the current game by adding either complexity or balance like earlier editions have to their detriment.
We owe it to ourselves to be honest. When someone says they want a class or subclass to be more "complex" they're really just saying they want more features to pick from. Features themselves aren't complex. They're just new toys for the player to, well, play with.
Classes with spellcasting are complex, by default, because every spell is a class feature. You get a ton of them, and they can be changed out from a master list fairly regularly.
Classes without spellcasting need other features to feel complex without ever actually approaching the complexity of a devoted spellcasting class. Classes like monk and rogue are excellent examples.
So, what do "basic bonk" classes, like the fighter, actually need to feel suitably complex? Something akin to battle master maneuvers is off the table. That's reserved for the subclass. And speaking of which, does the fighter chassis need this complexity, or can it come from the subclass?
There's a very simple answer to that: I don't want to play a cleric or a wizard. I do in fact want to hit things with swords, I just want to do it with style.
Ok then you want to play a simpler class, by your own admission all you want to do is hit things with swords. Problem solved! You don't need new rules or mechanics for style - If you want to do it with style then hold your sword inverted like Ashoka or use a spring loaded scabard so your sword flys out of it ito your hand when you use your free action to draw it. Or sharpen the pommel and slash people with that side of it on your back hand second attack instead of using the blade. Style and thematics are free and can be added on any chassis.
By the way there are plenty of more complex swordswoman options including with Cleric, Warlock and Wizard as a matter of fact a Wizard can be one of the most effective "hit things with swords" character there is. They bring the cherished "complexity" while still having all the style options of the simpler fighter.
Well, a while back I said something along the lines of "There SHOULD be a simple fighter, just as there should be a simple arcane, divine, and primal caster. Likewise, there should be a more complex fighter." And then I sat back to see how well that would be received. As usual, the internet provided!
I gave my thoughts on this already: I would want choices at every odd level. And these should come from unique lists, not just "pick 2 more options from the same list". The same as casters, in other words.
The current fighter gets a meaningful choice at 1st level (fighting style). That is all. Yes, they get more feats than other classes, but as you are picking from the same list it is a case of diminishing returns. The playtest could imply that they are thinking of using Leveled feats, which is a good step in the right direction. Especially if they make a suite of Warrior specific feats, advanced fighting styles, etc.
On its own, this won't be enough; I would still like to see more options at certain levels. The most stark to me is level 9: when casters get fancy 5th level spells, fighters get to reroll a failed save once per day. This would need to be part of the base class, as subclasses don't allow for enough features.
It is also very simple to add choices while still maintaining the simplicity that many players prefer and enjoy. Include the old fighter features as options, and even list them as the suggested choices. "At 9th level, a fighter gets Indomitable or another feat of your choice."
And with the proposed changes to centralized spell lists and classes only being able to access spells of certain schools, it looks like they are making the low-end and the high-end of caster complexity even more convoluted.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Let me introduce you to the paladin, or swords bard, or swashbuckler, or hexblade, or spore Druid. There are any number of ways to hit things with swords with a variety of different styles.
Or, you know, an eldritch knight, or an echo knight, or a rune knight if you are attached to hanging the fighter label on your stylish sword-hitting character.
As has been stated, most PCs are lucky if they even get to smell their second subclass feature by the time a campaign ends, so subclasses cannot possible provide enough to really differentiate two fighters from each other 90% of the time. It’s just not possible. There needs to be something baked into the base class.
I say let Barbarians be the boring class.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So , just to be clear that means you are 100% ok with the idea of making Barbarian a super complex class with a bunch of combat maneuvers and out of combat, maybe even shamanistic like abilities, while the fighter remains a simple hit it with a stick person?
Yeah I do definitely find that strange. It should be barbarian which is the "hit stick class" of any of them. Whenever I see barbarian players they tend to like that fantasy of unstoppable, mindless, rage machine and not an intricate system. It tends to be fighter and monk players who want the complexity
I don't think this is true. All the published hardcovers go to at least level 8, which is enough to get 2 subclass features on all subclasses I think and most campaigns go beyond level 10.
Except there is only three, maybe four builds of fighter using feats subclasses etc. And feats are an optional rule - what happens if the DM doesn’t allow feats in the name of ‘simplicity’
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
Honestly, the complexity of the battle master is perfectly acceptable at level 3 (other than certain options being objectively terrible-- you can try doing a warlord with battle master maneuvers, its just that all of the leadership maneuvers suck), it's just that, well, that's pretty much it. You don't get better maneuvers at higher levels, just more of same.
No. It is not. A different class, no matter how ‘martial’ you make it, is not a fighter. It doesn’t have action surge, or second wind, or the same amount of attacks, or the same hit points, or feat options, or armour proficiencies, or weapon proficiencies.
You are using exaggerated examples. The ‘complex fighter’ would not ruin the game to the extent of 4e.
We aren’t debating the way the game is going, we are debating the way it should go.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
That doesn’t mean all campaigns last for the full duration. Working people especially will have huge scheduling issues, which can often bring a campaign grinding to a halt.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
You need options to play the concept you want. If you have a concept of a yellow shirt, but the only options you have are sweater and blue, you can't play it.