I'll say rogues are boring. I used to enjoy them a lot more, but in recent endeavours I've trended more towards rangers and bards and have rarely had a class concept that started as rogue survive as one. The Expert Classes playtest helped drive home why that was - rogues are flat, one-dimensional, and generally not very good. There's nothing a rogue can do that other classes don't do better. "A Level In Rogue" as your starting level for a multiclass job is great, rogues still have one of the most juiced first-level drops in the game, but every level after that is sharply diminishing returns.
Personally, I play more Rogues than any other class. I do agree in general thatmany Rogue builds can be pretty simple and flat. However as far as single class builds go, I think Arcane Tricksters is probably the most complex single class character in the game through tier 2 and into tier 3 with their plethora of bonus actions, reactions, expertise, spells, mage hand legerdemain and an extra feat. Once you hit tier 3, some of the Rangers start to catch up to them in complexity I think.
You can make other classes that do thing better than a Rogue, but on the flip side a Rogue can be built to do just about anything well. I can make a Rogue controller, a Rogue damage dealer, a Rogue grappler, a Rogue Face and can do all of those really well, not the best perhaps, but really well without giving up a whole lot elsewhere. You can't do that as easily with other classes.
You get a lot with 1 level on a Rogue multiclass, especially if you start as Rogue, but I also think 2nd level is pretty big for a multiclass dip due to cunning action.
I still say that if people truly are over the moon about this Simple > Everything Else thing, the answer is Foundation classes. Why bother with any choices at all, when the entire argument is that choices and decision-making are bad? Glow up the "sidekick" blocks, make them easily the equal of a "normal" adventurer. Export the Champion as a Foundational warrior if you want, even. Get rid of subclasses, fighting styles, optional features, feats - the Foundation class has zero selection points and is built to be as simple to run as is reasonably possible within the system. Even their stats can be fixed, with a DM-determined choice of spreads or a method for the DM to roll their stats, and then fixed ASIs to specific scores baked into their progression. Refit the Foundation classes into the SRD so everybody can use them, and then not only do you have your "my player is too stupid to understand a class with choices so I'll give them this" classes? You also have good fodder for convention pregens that everybody who knows the game will understand.
I think you will and in fact do see some of that on a small scale. I think most want a mix of simple and complex options, with the casters naturally being the more complex options because of the spells and thematics surrounding magic.
It's a shouting match, Bard, because despite Stegodorkus' most manful efforts to wrest the thing on course - which, occasionally, showed signs of working - some people take "respect others' views" as "respect the view that simplicity is better than complexity and please just shut up and stop". You were directly responsible for as many crashes back into the mud pit as I was, if not more; I can recall at least three times you crashed in with a "JUST PUT THE COMPLEXITY SOMEWHERE ELSE AND LEAVE SIMPLE FIGHTER ALONE" tirade after Steg had started to get a little bit of traction on a discussion of something else.
I've proposed and commented on numerous compromise ideas within this thread. All I can remember from your end is a steadfast, adamant, and unflinching resolve to Keep Fighter Exactly The Way It Is and tell everyone who wants something different to go somewhere else to get it. A new class, a new game, a new hobby entirely, doesn't matter - go somewhere else was the only message I ever received from any of your posts.
So kindly don't take that high-and-haughty tone with me, good sir. If you don't want to participate any more, you don't have to. You can, however, please stop sabotaging any attempts other folks make to do so.
What do you mean when you say I am “sabotaging” people who are trying to participate in this “discussion” and their attempts “to wrest the thing on course”? This thread was never about actually creating homebrew to help fix anything. The whole purpose of this thread was the original poster complaining about people who wanted simplicity in the game and making one proposal that A) would involve changing everything in the game and B) is never going to happen. I explained that, and how I thought that a simple class was important in my very first post on this thread.
But before I got to this thread, you posted talking about an old angry “debate” thread that had ended and how you were angry at all “the lying liars” in it who had disagreed with you. And then, the original poster stopped talking about their proposal on making every class but Fighter simple, and they started arguing about how Barbarian should be the only simple class. And so, three posts in, this thread had devolved into misrepresenting others’ opinions, name-calling, and attacking others’ views. That is the course that this thread was clearly going to follow from early on.
When people come in with a match and a gas can, other peope will disagree. And though those other people did their best to civilly disagree with the above posters, while respecting those posters' ideas, the matches were soon lit and this thread quickly became the least civil argument I have ever seen.
Stego tried to turn the shouting match into something productive, but he wasn’t able to defuse the flames and understand that turning a thread where people are determined to argue for the sake of arguing into something actually productive is basically impossible.
I gave ideas on how to help allow all players to have options that they can play and enjoy. Those ideas were ignored. I never interrupted Stego doing anything to help people come up with homebrew fixes, all I did was say that telling new players or players who like simplicity to just play a complex class that they don’t want to play is not a fix; it’s just a way of barring certain types of players from playing the game.
And Yurei, no one has told you to play a different game or pick up a different hobby. No one has told you that you can’t play a Fighter either. All we’ve said is that everybody should be able to play this game, and if that means that “advanced” players wanting to play “the simple class” have their subclass options slightly limited or have to play a slightly simpler character, then so be it. That is a necessary cost for allowing numerous other types of players to have any options at all.
Though it seems clear to me that this would always be an argument, it could have at least been a civil and polite one, as Stego tried to make it. The lack of etiquette and downright rudeness by some users on this thread has appalled me. This thread was never going to be productive, but it didn’t have to be this bad. So now that this thread has devolved into what it is now, why are we continuing it?
TL;DR: Can we all just agree to disagree and actually end this pointless argument?
I gave ideas on how to help allow all players to have options that they can play and enjoy. Those ideas were ignored.
I feel the need to point out that when I noticed a flaw in your proposal I pointed it out and asked for clarification but you never did respond. I also give my own proposal on how to appease everyone, and everyone just ignored it.
I don't know how to quote things on two different pages so ask if you need me to repeat the posts i'm talking about.
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.
I say let Barbarians be the boring class.
Are you saying a level 3 champion plays the same as a level 3 rune knight as a level 3 samurai as a level 3 echo knight? That there’s really no appreciable difference between them? Because if that’s the case, I’m going to have to disagree.
When they’re not actively using their subclass feature, or can’t, then yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Sorry, on my phone and I can’t really snip this down.
So they play the same, except when they don’t. By that rationale all level 3 barbs are the same also, since they’ve also only got one subclass feature and can only use it a few times. Ditto rogues, monks and generally most classes that get their subclass at level 3. That’s not a fighter problem then, it’s a systemic issue.
@yurei I just played a dex paladin up through level 13, and had fun. I wish I’d known I was doing D&D wrong back then.
I do everything on DDB on my phone. 🤷♂️
Not quite so with spellcasters. Their sheer variety of spells prevents them from all feeling the same. Martials on the other hand…. And Rogues got the whole skill monkey thing goin’ on to keep them from getting boring. Like I wrote earlier, let Barbarians (and I suppose Monks) be the boring martial classes, let’s give Fighters some pizzazz.
My phone skills are weak. Thanks for the snip.
The point was that if you're saying level 3 fighters all play the same because they only have one class feature, then that's true of a lot of other classes as well, so why just crap on the fighter about it. I agree it's not the case with casters, but that's kind of been the crux of the disagreement. Some of us don't want them to be the same as casters. We like them not having lots of bells and whistles. It's a feature, not a bug, that we don't have lots of different limited use abilities to track. And if you do want lots of bells and whistles on a character who's main thing is swinging a sword, there are lots and lots of other class-subclass combos that fit that bill, they just don't have the "fighter" label hung on them. There's plenty of pizzazz out there.
I do appreciate your thoughts (and there have been a few others who also said it) about making the barb the simple class. At least you're acknowledging that there should be a simple option for people that want it. I still don't quite think barb is really the way to go there. But I'd be open to seeing it done. I guess you could just make a barb subclass that keeps adding on more and more static pluses to rage, instead of adding more abilities to rage. That could maybe work. Still doesn't get me the archer or heavy armor option.
And yes, rogues do get all those skills. I'd said a few pages back, my bigger issue with the fighter, and what I think would go a long way to making them even more interesting for people, is a better-defined role in the non-combat pillars of the game. When a fight starts, all rogues are pretty much doing the same thing - stab the guy next to the fighter (or barb/pally), then back away. They don't have all the tactical options of a caster. But no one says they're boring. That's because when the fight ends, rogues still have things to do. Maybe give a fighter an extra skill proficiency or two, and a reason (besides saving throws) to invest in an ability score besides str/dex and con.
No problemo. I got yer back. 👍
You say it’s the same with “lots of other classes,” but agree that it doesn’t happen to any of the casters, or Rogues. That means you agree that, out of the four class groups (martial, expert, arcane, priest), that the only group affected is the martial group. Barbarian is already pretty simple, even with its various subclasses adding shenanigans. Monk is the least boring of the three, but even still, once you’re out of Ki and if you aren’t in a situation where your Way features are relevant they’re also all pretty samesame. (Heck, even with the Ki for that matter since they only have 3-4 things they can do with it, and half of the options are traps.) Monks are also fairly simple. I say let at least one of the martial classes get some bling features that swing low like a ‘caster’s. Are you really telling me that if the base fighter got 2-3 Superiority Dice and 2-3 Maneuvers that would be too craycray for anyone? Really? Really?!?
Actually, I do think it happens with rogues that they pretty much all end up playing the same at level 3 and said as much. (Though I'll defer to ECMO saying you can do other things with them, and really don't want to thread-jack this into a rogue fight.) And monks seem pretty complicated to me. At least, in play, I've really only seen one person do it right. Most monk players learn the hard way that they're not actually in a Jackie Chan movie where the bad guys can't land a hit, so they try and be a front-liner rather than a skirmisher. Then after they get beat down a few times, they decide monks suck and roll up something new. (Though that's mostly anecdotal experience, admittedly.)
And the argument you make about monks and ki points can be made about casters as well. After Wizards use all their spell slots, they all just sit around spamming fire bolt, so they all play the same, too.
If I were to redesign a fighter to add an option for some complexity (the operative word being option), rather than stripping the battlemaster for parts, I'd rather go something like the route of warlock invocations. You can take some abilities that just give you a static bonus or some other thing that's always on, so you can get oomph without having to think about choices mid-fight. Or you can take some that give you limited use ability if you want those extra buttons to push. Maybe you do actually make some fighter invocations basically like a battlemaster maneuver, so people can take that option if they like. But you also make some just a flat bonus to sword swinging so you can keep things simple if you want. Maybe others have nothing to do with a fight if you want to round out non-combat pillars. As I'm writing this, I realize that's probably very similar, if not identical, to things other people have said over the course of this thread, so let me apologize to those people.
I think most want a mix of simple and complex options, with the casters naturally being the more complex options because of the spells and thematics surrounding magic.
The first half of that sentence is correct. The second... is at least controversial.
We have foundation classes: cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard.
You already don't like two of them. I surmise you find them boring and uninteresting because they have a simple rotation. Fighters attack things. Rogues do, too, but they're also reliably using their Cunning Action for other things: dash, disengage, and hide. They have a "role" and don't often deviate from them in combat. What you're missing is the chassis doesn't need to be complex. It's intended to be a solid foundation for the subclass to grant additional abilities to. That's where their complexity comes in─through their respective subclasses.
Even the Champion can be interesting as a switch-hitter. You might not think much of it, but being able to go from greatsword to a longbow at the drop of a hat, without sacrificing much effectiveness, is useful. Or they can double-down on whatever their preferred style is. There are tons of diversity to be found; if you're willing to look. And you might even see it. It just doesn't appeal to you. And that's okay. Not everything needs to be made for us on an individual basis. But you can't lie to us by saying there's no complexity. It's just not in the chassis.
Clerics have a complex chassis. They have Spellcasting and Channel Divinity to juggle. But that complexity is really just having lots of potential options. They're balanced by being able to do those options a finite number of times per day. And even if they have those options, they can still be played monotonously. A cleric who spends the first two rounds of every combat casting spirit guardians and spiritual weapon might be powerful, but they aren't interesting.
If you want an interesting character, find interesting things to do. Every single class and subclass is capable of it. You just need an open mind.
I maintain that the oh-so-dreaded wizard is one of the simplest (over-simplest, even!) classes in all of 5e because it gets nothing but spells. It has no class features, its subclasses effectively don't exist...the wizard is nothing but a big fat formless sackful of spells with absolutely nothing whatsoever to give them any non-spell options for their efforts. People assume they're complicated because they assume magic is complicated, but once you figure out the pseduo-Vancian bologna nonsense that is "Spell Slots", there's nothing complicated about magic. Pay cost, get effect. Effect written out (mostly, usually) unambiguously into the spell itself. Yes, you have to keep all your various options in your head and decide quickly and smoothly what to use, but the actual using-of-spells is not complex at all.
That view is contested if one sees the spell list as a large pool of mixc-and-match customizable class features, which is a valid viewpoint to hold. But even then, the way in which all those features work is the same. Unified by the (crappy) 5e Spellcasting rules, which work the same for every spell. Pay the cost in spell slots, provide the spell components, gain the effect written in the spell. Not even remotely Rocket Science. The only real "complexity" is the mental overhead of memorizing spells and knowing what they do, and considering I was playing trading card games at a reasoinably competitive level, memorizing the effects and interactions of thousands of different cards, when I was twelve...I feel like a dozenish spells on average is not beyond the reach of most folks' brains.
But some people just don't want to deal with it. That's fine. I mean, my brain fundamentally rebels against checking that far out of a game, but intellectually I can understand. It's why I so strongly support the idea of Foundation classes, and failing that the idea of a set of ACFs for the fighter that, effectively, turn the fighter into a Foundation class. People who want to check that far out of a D&D game don't want to have to pick their stats, or their Fighting Style, or their gear, or their feats, or anything else either. They want to just sit down, grab their beer, thunk some cultists skulls and enjoy. So take the "Simplicity > Everything" even further and give them a class option that is completely, 100% on rails from start to finish so they never have to check in and think and can simply thunk skulls from front to back with nary an issue or a decision made.
Is that not better than forcing them to make some decisions when they want to be making no decisions?
I maintain that the oh-so-dreaded wizard is one of the simplest (over-simplest, even!) classes in all of 5e because it gets nothing but spells.
Given that an average class feature is comparable in complexity to learning two spells, and wizards have the largest spell list, yeah, wizards are high complexity.
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.
I say let Barbarians be the boring class.
Are you saying a level 3 champion plays the same as a level 3 rune knight as a level 3 samurai as a level 3 echo knight? That there’s really no appreciable difference between them? Because if that’s the case, I’m going to have to disagree.
When they’re not actively using their subclass feature, or can’t, then yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Sorry, on my phone and I can’t really snip this down.
So they play the same, except when they don’t. By that rationale all level 3 barbs are the same also, since they’ve also only got one subclass feature and can only use it a few times. Ditto rogues, monks and generally most classes that get their subclass at level 3. That’s not a fighter problem then, it’s a systemic issue.
@yurei I just played a dex paladin up through level 13, and had fun. I wish I’d known I was doing D&D wrong back then.
I do everything on DDB on my phone. 🤷♂️
Not quite so with spellcasters. Their sheer variety of spells prevents them from all feeling the same. Martials on the other hand…. And Rogues got the whole skill monkey thing goin’ on to keep them from getting boring. Like I wrote earlier, let Barbarians (and I suppose Monks) be the boring martial classes, let’s give Fighters some pizzazz.
My phone skills are weak. Thanks for the snip.
The point was that if you're saying level 3 fighters all play the same because they only have one class feature, then that's true of a lot of other classes as well, so why just crap on the fighter about it. I agree it's not the case with casters, but that's kind of been the crux of the disagreement. Some of us don't want them to be the same as casters. We like them not having lots of bells and whistles. It's a feature, not a bug, that we don't have lots of different limited use abilities to track. And if you do want lots of bells and whistles on a character who's main thing is swinging a sword, there are lots and lots of other class-subclass combos that fit that bill, they just don't have the "fighter" label hung on them. There's plenty of pizzazz out there.
I do appreciate your thoughts (and there have been a few others who also said it) about making the barb the simple class. At least you're acknowledging that there should be a simple option for people that want it. I still don't quite think barb is really the way to go there. But I'd be open to seeing it done. I guess you could just make a barb subclass that keeps adding on more and more static pluses to rage, instead of adding more abilities to rage. That could maybe work. Still doesn't get me the archer or heavy armor option.
And yes, rogues do get all those skills. I'd said a few pages back, my bigger issue with the fighter, and what I think would go a long way to making them even more interesting for people, is a better-defined role in the non-combat pillars of the game. When a fight starts, all rogues are pretty much doing the same thing - stab the guy next to the fighter (or barb/pally), then back away. They don't have all the tactical options of a caster. But no one says they're boring. That's because when the fight ends, rogues still have things to do. Maybe give a fighter an extra skill proficiency or two, and a reason (besides saving throws) to invest in an ability score besides str/dex and con.
No problemo. I got yer back. 👍
You say it’s the same with “lots of other classes,” but agree that it doesn’t happen to any of the casters, or Rogues. That means you agree that, out of the four class groups (martial, expert, arcane, priest), that the only group affected is the martial group. Barbarian is already pretty simple, even with its various subclasses adding shenanigans. Monk is the least boring of the three, but even still, once you’re out of Ki and if you aren’t in a situation where your Way features are relevant they’re also all pretty samesame. (Heck, even with the Ki for that matter since they only have 3-4 things they can do with it, and half of the options are traps.) Monks are also fairly simple. I say let at least one of the martial classes get some bling features that swing low like a ‘caster’s. Are you really telling me that if the base fighter got 2-3 Superiority Dice and 2-3 Maneuvers that would be too craycray for anyone? Really? Really?!?
Actually, I do think it happens with rogues that they pretty much all end up playing the same at level 3 and said as much. (Though I'll defer to ECMO saying you can do other things with them, and really don't want to thread-jack this into a rogue fight.) And monks seem pretty complicated to me. At least, in play, I've really only seen one person do it right. Most monk players learn the hard way that they're not actually in a Jackie Chan movie where the bad guys can't land a hit, so they try and be a front-liner rather than a skirmisher. Then after they get beat down a few times, they decide monks suck and roll up something new. (Though that's mostly anecdotal experience, admittedly.)
And the argument you make about monks and ki points can be made about casters as well. After Wizards use all their spell slots, they all just sit around spamming fire bolt, so they all play the same, too.
If I were to redesign a fighter to add an option for some complexity (the operative word being option), rather than stripping the battlemaster for parts, I'd rather go something like the route of warlock invocations. You can take some abilities that just give you a static bonus or some other thing that's always on, so you can get oomph without having to think about choices mid-fight. Or you can take some that give you limited use ability if you want those extra buttons to push. Maybe you do actually make some fighter invocations basically like a battlemaster maneuver, so people can take that option if they like. But you also make some just a flat bonus to sword swinging so you can keep things simple if you want. Maybe others have nothing to do with a fight if you want to round out non-combat pillars. As I'm writing this, I realize that's probably very similar, if not identical, to things other people have said over the course of this thread, so let me apologize to those people.
I would be okay with your suggested fixes. And that’s mighty big of you.
Yes, you have to keep all your various options in your head and decide quickly and smoothly what to use, but the actual using-of-spells is not complex at all.
Therin lies the complexity.
You don't pay a mechanic because they know how to turn a wrench. You pay them because they have 100 different wrenches and know which one to turn.
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.
I say let Barbarians be the boring class.
Are you saying a level 3 champion plays the same as a level 3 rune knight as a level 3 samurai as a level 3 echo knight? That there’s really no appreciable difference between them? Because if that’s the case, I’m going to have to disagree.
When they’re not actively using their subclass feature, or can’t, then yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Sorry, on my phone and I can’t really snip this down.
So they play the same, except when they don’t. By that rationale all level 3 barbs are the same also, since they’ve also only got one subclass feature and can only use it a few times. Ditto rogues, monks and generally most classes that get their subclass at level 3. That’s not a fighter problem then, it’s a systemic issue.
@yurei I just played a dex paladin up through level 13, and had fun. I wish I’d known I was doing D&D wrong back then.
I do everything on DDB on my phone. 🤷♂️
Not quite so with spellcasters. Their sheer variety of spells prevents them from all feeling the same. Martials on the other hand…. And Rogues got the whole skill monkey thing goin’ on to keep them from getting boring. Like I wrote earlier, let Barbarians (and I suppose Monks) be the boring martial classes, let’s give Fighters some pizzazz.
My phone skills are weak. Thanks for the snip.
The point was that if you're saying level 3 fighters all play the same because they only have one class feature, then that's true of a lot of other classes as well, so why just crap on the fighter about it. I agree it's not the case with casters, but that's kind of been the crux of the disagreement. Some of us don't want them to be the same as casters. We like them not having lots of bells and whistles. It's a feature, not a bug, that we don't have lots of different limited use abilities to track. And if you do want lots of bells and whistles on a character who's main thing is swinging a sword, there are lots and lots of other class-subclass combos that fit that bill, they just don't have the "fighter" label hung on them. There's plenty of pizzazz out there.
I do appreciate your thoughts (and there have been a few others who also said it) about making the barb the simple class. At least you're acknowledging that there should be a simple option for people that want it. I still don't quite think barb is really the way to go there. But I'd be open to seeing it done. I guess you could just make a barb subclass that keeps adding on more and more static pluses to rage, instead of adding more abilities to rage. That could maybe work. Still doesn't get me the archer or heavy armor option.
And yes, rogues do get all those skills. I'd said a few pages back, my bigger issue with the fighter, and what I think would go a long way to making them even more interesting for people, is a better-defined role in the non-combat pillars of the game. When a fight starts, all rogues are pretty much doing the same thing - stab the guy next to the fighter (or barb/pally), then back away. They don't have all the tactical options of a caster. But no one says they're boring. That's because when the fight ends, rogues still have things to do. Maybe give a fighter an extra skill proficiency or two, and a reason (besides saving throws) to invest in an ability score besides str/dex and con.
No problemo. I got yer back. 👍
You say it’s the same with “lots of other classes,” but agree that it doesn’t happen to any of the casters, or Rogues. That means you agree that, out of the four class groups (martial, expert, arcane, priest), that the only group affected is the martial group. Barbarian is already pretty simple, even with its various subclasses adding shenanigans. Monk is the least boring of the three, but even still, once you’re out of Ki and if you aren’t in a situation where your Way features are relevant they’re also all pretty samesame. (Heck, even with the Ki for that matter since they only have 3-4 things they can do with it, and half of the options are traps.) Monks are also fairly simple. I say let at least one of the martial classes get some bling features that swing low like a ‘caster’s. Are you really telling me that if the base fighter got 2-3 Superiority Dice and 2-3 Maneuvers that would be too craycray for anyone? Really? Really?!?
Actually, I do think it happens with rogues that they pretty much all end up playing the same at level 3 and said as much. (Though I'll defer to ECMO saying you can do other things with them, and really don't want to thread-jack this into a rogue fight.) And monks seem pretty complicated to me. At least, in play, I've really only seen one person do it right. Most monk players learn the hard way that they're not actually in a Jackie Chan movie where the bad guys can't land a hit, so they try and be a front-liner rather than a skirmisher. Then after they get beat down a few times, they decide monks suck and roll up something new. (Though that's mostly anecdotal experience, admittedly.)
And the argument you make about monks and ki points can be made about casters as well. After Wizards use all their spell slots, they all just sit around spamming fire bolt, so they all play the same, too.
If I were to redesign a fighter to add an option for some complexity (the operative word being option), rather than stripping the battlemaster for parts, I'd rather go something like the route of warlock invocations. You can take some abilities that just give you a static bonus or some other thing that's always on, so you can get oomph without having to think about choices mid-fight. Or you can take some that give you limited use ability if you want those extra buttons to push. Maybe you do actually make some fighter invocations basically like a battlemaster maneuver, so people can take that option if they like. But you also make some just a flat bonus to sword swinging so you can keep things simple if you want. Maybe others have nothing to do with a fight if you want to round out non-combat pillars. As I'm writing this, I realize that's probably very similar, if not identical, to things other people have said over the course of this thread, so let me apologize to those people.
I would be okay with your suggested fixes. And that’s mighty big of you.
Thank you.
The problem gets to be in the actual doing of it. Flat bonuses are a tough thing to add in bounded accuracy. Luckily, I don't have to actually do it, just complain about it on the Internet.
I maintain that the oh-so-dreaded wizard is one of the simplest (over-simplest, even!) classes in all of 5e because it gets nothing but spells. It has no class features, its subclasses effectively don't exist...the wizard is nothing but a big fat formless sackful of spells with absolutely nothing whatsoever to give them any non-spell options for their efforts. People assume they're complicated because they assume magic is complicated, but once you figure out the pseduo-Vancian bologna nonsense that is "Spell Slots", there's nothing complicated about magic. Pay cost, get effect. Effect written out (mostly, usually) unambiguously into the spell itself. Yes, you have to keep all your various options in your head and decide quickly and smoothly what to use, but the actual using-of-spells is not complex at all.
That view is contested if one sees the spell list as a large pool of mixc-and-match customizable class features, which is a valid viewpoint to hold. But even then, the way in which all those features work is the same. Unified by the (crappy) 5e Spellcasting rules, which work the same for every spell. Pay the cost in spell slots, provide the spell components, gain the effect written in the spell. Not even remotely Rocket Science. The only real "complexity" is the mental overhead of memorizing spells and knowing what they do, and considering I was playing trading card games at a reasoinably competitive level, memorizing the effects and interactions of thousands of different cards, when I was twelve...I feel like a dozenish spells on average is not beyond the reach of most folks' brains.
But some people just don't want to deal with it. That's fine. I mean, my brain fundamentally rebels against checking that far out of a game, but intellectually I can understand. It's why I so strongly support the idea of Foundation classes, and failing that the idea of a set of ACFs for the fighter that, effectively, turn the fighter into a Foundation class. People who want to check that far out of a D&D game don't want to have to pick their stats, or their Fighting Style, or their gear, or their feats, or anything else either. They want to just sit down, grab their beer, thunk some cultists skulls and enjoy. So take the "Simplicity > Everything" even further and give them a class option that is completely, 100% on rails from start to finish so they never have to check in and think and can simply thunk skulls from front to back with nary an issue or a decision made.
Is that not better than forcing them to make some decisions when they want to be making no decisions?
A couple of thoughts on this post in no particular order:
1) Wizard is a very complex class. It has numerous options and choices that you have to make at level 1 + more and more options you have to make as the levels progress. Comparing spells to trading cards is a bad comparison because A) Trading cards are much shorter and simpler than spells and B) most of what is on them is just flavor text. Also, other spellcasters, such as Sorcerers, have Sorcery Points which means that spellcasting isn't their only complex feature.
2) No one thinks that simplicity is better than everything else, all they believe is that simple options are easier to play and a lot of people want/need those options. Likewise, players who like simplicity don't want zero choices. They just want a bit less choices than some other classes have, and they want for those choices to not be overwhelmingly complicated.
3) That being said, I do like the idea of "Foundation Classes" that are designed to be options that are easy to play and available to new players. That being said, adding more core classes would just mean putting more pages, systems, and rules in the next PHB. And doing this just to create classes that only a relatively smallish portion of D&D players really just doesn't seem fair, especially when we already have classes in place that allow for players who like simplicity to be able to play. Honestly, adding a bunch more "simple" classes is not necessary, what is necessary however is to not take away the most beloved simple option in the game. Add in a new complex instead if you already are proposing adding more classes to the game.
I gave ideas on how to help allow all players to have options that they can play and enjoy. Those ideas were ignored.
I feel the need to point out that when I noticed a flaw in your proposal I pointed it out and asked for clarification but you never did respond. I also give my own proposal on how to appease everyone, and everyone just ignored it.
I don't know how to quote things on two different pages so ask if you need me to repeat the posts i'm talking about.
Just open a new tab, quote it there, and then copy and paste it into the other tab. It's a weird system, but it works. Anyways, I didn't see that post; so it would be nice if you could quote it here.
The problem gets to be in the actual doing of it. Flat bonuses are a tough thing to add in bounded accuracy.
Not really. Just make it a damage bonus instead of a flat attack bonus (for example, the Brute monster feature, though that would likely be overpowered).
I maintain that the oh-so-dreaded wizard is one of the simplest (over-simplest, even!) classes in all of 5e because it gets nothing but spells. It has no class features, its subclasses effectively don't exist...the wizard is nothing but a big fat formless sackful of spells with absolutely nothing whatsoever to give them any non-spell options for their efforts. People assume they're complicated because they assume magic is complicated, but once you figure out the pseduo-Vancian bologna nonsense that is "Spell Slots", there's nothing complicated about magic. Pay cost, get effect. Effect written out (mostly, usually) unambiguously into the spell itself. Yes, you have to keep all your various options in your head and decide quickly and smoothly what to use, but the actual using-of-spells is not complex at all.
That view is contested if one sees the spell list as a large pool of mixc-and-match customizable class features, which is a valid viewpoint to hold. But even then, the way in which all those features work is the same. Unified by the (crappy) 5e Spellcasting rules, which work the same for every spell. Pay the cost in spell slots, provide the spell components, gain the effect written in the spell. Not even remotely Rocket Science. The only real "complexity" is the mental overhead of memorizing spells and knowing what they do, and considering I was playing trading card games at a reasoinably competitive level, memorizing the effects and interactions of thousands of different cards, when I was twelve...I feel like a dozenish spells on average is not beyond the reach of most folks' brains.
But some people just don't want to deal with it. That's fine. I mean, my brain fundamentally rebels against checking that far out of a game, but intellectually I can understand. It's why I so strongly support the idea of Foundation classes, and failing that the idea of a set of ACFs for the fighter that, effectively, turn the fighter into a Foundation class. People who want to check that far out of a D&D game don't want to have to pick their stats, or their Fighting Style, or their gear, or their feats, or anything else either. They want to just sit down, grab their beer, thunk some cultists skulls and enjoy. So take the "Simplicity > Everything" even further and give them a class option that is completely, 100% on rails from start to finish so they never have to check in and think and can simply thunk skulls from front to back with nary an issue or a decision made.
Is that not better than forcing them to make some decisions when they want to be making no decisions?
A couple of thoughts on this post in no particular order:
1) Wizard is a very complex class. It has numerous options and choices that you have to make at level 1 + more and more options you have to make as the levels progress. Comparing spells to trading cards is a bad comparison because A) Trading cards are much shorter and simpler than spells and B) most of what is on them is just flavor text. Also, other spellcasters, such as Sorcerers, have Sorcery Points which means that spellcasting isn't their only complex feature.
2) No one thinks that simplicity is better than everything else, all they believe is that simple options are easier to play and a lot of people want/need those options. Likewise, players who like simplicity don't want zero choices. They just want a bit less choices than some other classes have, and they want for those choices to not be overwhelmingly complicated.
3) That being said, I do like the idea of "Foundation Classes" that are designed to be options that are easy to play and available to new players. That being said, adding more core classes would just mean putting more pages, systems, and rules in the next PHB. And doing this just to create classes that only a relatively smallish portion of D&D players really just doesn't seem fair, especially when we already have classes in place that allow for players who like simplicity to be able to play. Honestly, adding a bunch more "simple" classes is not necessary, what is necessary however is to not take away the most beloved simple option in the game. Add in a new complex instead if you already are proposing adding more classes to the game.
I gave ideas on how to help allow all players to have options that they can play and enjoy. Those ideas were ignored.
I feel the need to point out that when I noticed a flaw in your proposal I pointed it out and asked for clarification but you never did respond. I also give my own proposal on how to appease everyone, and everyone just ignored it.
I don't know how to quote things on two different pages so ask if you need me to repeat the posts i'm talking about.
Just open a new tab, quote it there, and then copy and paste it into the other tab. It's a weird system, but it works. Anyways, I didn't see that post; so it would be nice if you could quote it here.
Well then why don't we just take the angry man flavor out of barbarian. We rename the class and features change descriptions and then put a table in giving the suggestions for what your "battle trace" could be, Which would include Rage but also things like the Sherlock Holmes analysis or even something like Zeke's Eye of Shining Justice from xenoblade 2.
That way the new "barbarian" could be the simple Martial class and fighter could be the complicated one. No flavor defaults for either one.
And this my question about one of your arguments. I think most of context of lost in the thread and I don't think I did the quoting right.
Sorry if it comes off as rude, it's not my intention.
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.
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.
Lolno. Dex fighters are sad memes that get laughed off tables. Nobody's allowed to play a Dex-based fighter. Any time some poor sod tries, the entirety of the Internet rises up to punch them in the tenders and bellow "YOU HAVE HEAVY ARMOR PROFICIENCY USE IT", and they get to put their cool idea for a nimble bow-centric skirmisher back in the bin because every last single fighter must at all times be absolutely identical to and interchangeable with every other fighter ever made, and that means a sword, a board, a steel business suit, and a history of soldiering. It's even worse if you try to make a Dex paladin, the game doesn't even let you with its shitty multiclass requirements. The ONLY classes allowed to be Dexy are rangers, rogues, and monks, none of which are allowed to have a Strength score higher than 9 according to the very same exact people currently arguing that the R5e Fighter is a perfect flawless paragon of supreme and undeniable Ultraperfection that cannot possibly be improved on in even the slightest, tiniest of ways. Because it's popular.
Actually, dex-based ranged battlemaster is a fearsome thing, because maneuvers work with ranged weapons. Trip Attack a flying creature, and it falls to the ground like a downed Messerschmidt. Though it's too complicated, apparently) Also, I actually played a dex paladin with a spy background, an Illuminati kind of guy with a mission to hunt forbidden relics. 'twas cool.
I think most want a mix of simple and complex options, with the casters naturally being the more complex options because of the spells and thematics surrounding magic.
The first half of that sentence is correct. The second... is at least controversial.
What is not controversial is that is how it was implemented in 5E and 5E has enjoyed tremendous success.
Logically magic is by its very nature physics-breaking, complex, powerful and even its weakest spells are able to accomplish things in a primitive world comparable to what we can only due today with modern technology can do and in some cases things modern technology can't even do. Classes that use that literally awesome physics-breaking power should naturally be more complex IMO.
Suggesting someone who does not tap into magic should be able to do the same sorts of things as someone who does is like saying a martial arts expert with a sword today should be able to devastate an entire city just like a physicist with a thermonuclear weapon can.
"[X] is popular, therefore [X] is perfect" has never really been a good argument to make. 5e is popular, yes. So was 3.5e, back in the day. Was considered the most successful edition of the game by far. Did that make it perfect?
Clearly not.
5e is good. Its popularity does not, however, make it perfect. Let's try and keep that in mind.
That doesn’t mean there is 110 builds. The builds I was referencing were (+1, as I’ve thought of another unique one) 1. Ranged Fighter (will nearly always take the archery fighting style, crossbow expert/gunner, sharpshooter, use a heavy crossbow or longbow in games without firearms, and focus dexterity, and take other feats which allow for mobility, better initiative or more damage) 2. Melee Two-Handed Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, almost always will take the defence or great weapon fighting style, great weapon master, and use a greatsword/greataxe and take other feats which aid defence) 3. Melee Sword and Board Fighter (prioritises strength or dexterity and constitution, will almost always take dueling or defence, wear medium or heavy armour) 4. Sentinel/PAM Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take defence or great weapon fighting, wield a glaive, halberd, or pike, and take other feats which aid defence and/or battlefield control) 5. Grappling Fighter (prioritises strength and constitution, will almost always take the unarmed fighting style, grappler feat, and feats that aid grappling and/or defence)
That is not true. I have personally have played all of the following which are not on your list:
1. I played a rolled stat V. Human Battlemaster fighter with high strength and high dexterity who had both GWM and Sharpshooter. She had a 18 strength and 18 Dexterity at level 6, criminal background and a high stealth. For fighting style she had protection. She had a 12 constitution. If I had to do it over again I would have taken a strength ASI instead of GWM.
2. I played a V.Human Arcane Archer with superior technique fighting style and the martial adept feat. She was the favorite fighter I have ever played. She was on point buy and finished with an 8 strength, 16 Dexterity, 20 Intelligence and 10 constitution at the end of the campaign (15th level). She also had Observant, Shadow Touched (Cause Fear), Fey Touched (Hex) and Telepathic feats.
3. I played a Glasya Tiefling Arcane Archer again with superior technique fighting style and the martial adept feat and sharpshooter (which worked with darts and quick toss from her fighting style). She also had magic initiate feat with charm person, Friends and Green Flame Blade and took the actor feat at 12th level. She had a 17 Charisma, 16 Dexterity, 14 Intelligence at start. She took the actor feat at 12th level. She could deal a ton of damage on an opening alpha round with Action Surge getting 4 attacks (later 6) with her bow, one with grasping arrow and one with menacing attack, and then throw a sharpshooter dart with quick toss. if all those landed (which they usually didn't) that was 4d8+1d4+4d6+65 damage (average 99.5 damage at 6th level, 134.5 at 12th level) with additional effects including one enemy who is slowed and takes more damage when he moves and another that is frightened and she still had another arcane shot to use in the future. Again she had a 10 constitution.
4. I played a Shaddar Kai battlemaster with sharpshooter, thrown weapon fighting and a 20 strength who primarily used silvered darts (and had the quick toss maneuver). She also had a 10 constitution.
5. There are broadly two different variations on Grappler I have seen and neither of them use the grappler feat. The first, which is more common, uses unarmed fighting style and the Tavern Brawler feat (I have played this one). The second uses battlemaster, skill expert feat and Grappling Strike maneuver. The grappler feat is not a good feat for a grappler fighter. For a Rogue Grapple build I could see it (although still weak) but it offers nothing at all that I can see for a fighter.
I also rarely see any fighters take great weapon fighting any more. Usually it is defense or blind fighting although personally I take superior technique.
Now I have seen a lot of builds close to your examples, but I hardly think they are ubiquitous as you claim and I have seen many players deviate from these.
"[X] is popular, therefore [X] is perfect" has never really been a good argument to make. 5e is popular, yes. So was 3.5e, back in the day. Was considered the most successful edition of the game by far. Did that make it perfect?
Clearly not.
5e is good. Its popularity does not, however, make it perfect. Let's try and keep that in mind.
I never said it made it perfect, but it is far more popular than 3.5E was. I don't think they are comparable in terms of popularity and to be honest I do not think 3.5E was as popular as 1E either.
More to the point though, while popularity does not make perfect it does imply that players like the game construct. I they didn't it would not be popular and I certainly think a more complicated game will drive away some players.
More to the point though, while popularity does not make perfect it does imply that players like the game construct. I they didn't it would not be popular and I certainly think a more complicated game will drive away some players.
Based on what people choose to actually play, reducing the complexity of spellcasters and high level play would be popular.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Personally, I play more Rogues than any other class. I do agree in general thatmany Rogue builds can be pretty simple and flat. However as far as single class builds go, I think Arcane Tricksters is probably the most complex single class character in the game through tier 2 and into tier 3 with their plethora of bonus actions, reactions, expertise, spells, mage hand legerdemain and an extra feat. Once you hit tier 3, some of the Rangers start to catch up to them in complexity I think.
You can make other classes that do thing better than a Rogue, but on the flip side a Rogue can be built to do just about anything well. I can make a Rogue controller, a Rogue damage dealer, a Rogue grappler, a Rogue Face and can do all of those really well, not the best perhaps, but really well without giving up a whole lot elsewhere. You can't do that as easily with other classes.
You get a lot with 1 level on a Rogue multiclass, especially if you start as Rogue, but I also think 2nd level is pretty big for a multiclass dip due to cunning action.
I think you will and in fact do see some of that on a small scale. I think most want a mix of simple and complex options, with the casters naturally being the more complex options because of the spells and thematics surrounding magic.
What do you mean when you say I am “sabotaging” people who are trying to participate in this “discussion” and their attempts “to wrest the thing on course”? This thread was never about actually creating homebrew to help fix anything. The whole purpose of this thread was the original poster complaining about people who wanted simplicity in the game and making one proposal that A) would involve changing everything in the game and B) is never going to happen. I explained that, and how I thought that a simple class was important in my very first post on this thread.
But before I got to this thread, you posted talking about an old angry “debate” thread that had ended and how you were angry at all “the lying liars” in it who had disagreed with you. And then, the original poster stopped talking about their proposal on making every class but Fighter simple, and they started arguing about how Barbarian should be the only simple class. And so, three posts in, this thread had devolved into misrepresenting others’ opinions, name-calling, and attacking others’ views. That is the course that this thread was clearly going to follow from early on.
When people come in with a match and a gas can, other peope will disagree. And though those other people did their best to civilly disagree with the above posters, while respecting those posters' ideas, the matches were soon lit and this thread quickly became the least civil argument I have ever seen.
Stego tried to turn the shouting match into something productive, but he wasn’t able to defuse the flames and understand that turning a thread where people are determined to argue for the sake of arguing into something actually productive is basically impossible.
I gave ideas on how to help allow all players to have options that they can play and enjoy. Those ideas were ignored. I never interrupted Stego doing anything to help people come up with homebrew fixes, all I did was say that telling new players or players who like simplicity to just play a complex class that they don’t want to play is not a fix; it’s just a way of barring certain types of players from playing the game.
And Yurei, no one has told you to play a different game or pick up a different hobby. No one has told you that you can’t play a Fighter either. All we’ve said is that everybody should be able to play this game, and if that means that “advanced” players wanting to play “the simple class” have their subclass options slightly limited or have to play a slightly simpler character, then so be it. That is a necessary cost for allowing numerous other types of players to have any options at all.
Though it seems clear to me that this would always be an argument, it could have at least been a civil and polite one, as Stego tried to make it. The lack of etiquette and downright rudeness by some users on this thread has appalled me. This thread was never going to be productive, but it didn’t have to be this bad. So now that this thread has devolved into what it is now, why are we continuing it?
TL;DR: Can we all just agree to disagree and actually end this pointless argument?
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.I feel the need to point out that when I noticed a flaw in your proposal I pointed it out and asked for clarification but you never did respond. I also give my own proposal on how to appease everyone, and everyone just ignored it.
I don't know how to quote things on two different pages so ask if you need me to repeat the posts i'm talking about.
Actually, I do think it happens with rogues that they pretty much all end up playing the same at level 3 and said as much. (Though I'll defer to ECMO saying you can do other things with them, and really don't want to thread-jack this into a rogue fight.) And monks seem pretty complicated to me. At least, in play, I've really only seen one person do it right. Most monk players learn the hard way that they're not actually in a Jackie Chan movie where the bad guys can't land a hit, so they try and be a front-liner rather than a skirmisher. Then after they get beat down a few times, they decide monks suck and roll up something new. (Though that's mostly anecdotal experience, admittedly.)
And the argument you make about monks and ki points can be made about casters as well. After Wizards use all their spell slots, they all just sit around spamming fire bolt, so they all play the same, too.
If I were to redesign a fighter to add an option for some complexity (the operative word being option), rather than stripping the battlemaster for parts, I'd rather go something like the route of warlock invocations. You can take some abilities that just give you a static bonus or some other thing that's always on, so you can get oomph without having to think about choices mid-fight. Or you can take some that give you limited use ability if you want those extra buttons to push. Maybe you do actually make some fighter invocations basically like a battlemaster maneuver, so people can take that option if they like. But you also make some just a flat bonus to sword swinging so you can keep things simple if you want. Maybe others have nothing to do with a fight if you want to round out non-combat pillars. As I'm writing this, I realize that's probably very similar, if not identical, to things other people have said over the course of this thread, so let me apologize to those people.
The first half of that sentence is correct. The second... is at least controversial.
We have foundation classes: cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard.
You already don't like two of them. I surmise you find them boring and uninteresting because they have a simple rotation. Fighters attack things. Rogues do, too, but they're also reliably using their Cunning Action for other things: dash, disengage, and hide. They have a "role" and don't often deviate from them in combat. What you're missing is the chassis doesn't need to be complex. It's intended to be a solid foundation for the subclass to grant additional abilities to. That's where their complexity comes in─through their respective subclasses.
Even the Champion can be interesting as a switch-hitter. You might not think much of it, but being able to go from greatsword to a longbow at the drop of a hat, without sacrificing much effectiveness, is useful. Or they can double-down on whatever their preferred style is. There are tons of diversity to be found; if you're willing to look. And you might even see it. It just doesn't appeal to you. And that's okay. Not everything needs to be made for us on an individual basis. But you can't lie to us by saying there's no complexity. It's just not in the chassis.
Clerics have a complex chassis. They have Spellcasting and Channel Divinity to juggle. But that complexity is really just having lots of potential options. They're balanced by being able to do those options a finite number of times per day. And even if they have those options, they can still be played monotonously. A cleric who spends the first two rounds of every combat casting spirit guardians and spiritual weapon might be powerful, but they aren't interesting.
If you want an interesting character, find interesting things to do. Every single class and subclass is capable of it. You just need an open mind.
I maintain that the oh-so-dreaded wizard is one of the simplest (over-simplest, even!) classes in all of 5e because it gets nothing but spells. It has no class features, its subclasses effectively don't exist...the wizard is nothing but a big fat formless sackful of spells with absolutely nothing whatsoever to give them any non-spell options for their efforts. People assume they're complicated because they assume magic is complicated, but once you figure out the pseduo-Vancian bologna nonsense that is "Spell Slots", there's nothing complicated about magic. Pay cost, get effect. Effect written out (mostly, usually) unambiguously into the spell itself. Yes, you have to keep all your various options in your head and decide quickly and smoothly what to use, but the actual using-of-spells is not complex at all.
That view is contested if one sees the spell list as a large pool of mixc-and-match customizable class features, which is a valid viewpoint to hold. But even then, the way in which all those features work is the same. Unified by the (crappy) 5e Spellcasting rules, which work the same for every spell. Pay the cost in spell slots, provide the spell components, gain the effect written in the spell. Not even remotely Rocket Science. The only real "complexity" is the mental overhead of memorizing spells and knowing what they do, and considering I was playing trading card games at a reasoinably competitive level, memorizing the effects and interactions of thousands of different cards, when I was twelve...I feel like a dozenish spells on average is not beyond the reach of most folks' brains.
But some people just don't want to deal with it. That's fine. I mean, my brain fundamentally rebels against checking that far out of a game, but intellectually I can understand. It's why I so strongly support the idea of Foundation classes, and failing that the idea of a set of ACFs for the fighter that, effectively, turn the fighter into a Foundation class. People who want to check that far out of a D&D game don't want to have to pick their stats, or their Fighting Style, or their gear, or their feats, or anything else either. They want to just sit down, grab their beer, thunk some cultists skulls and enjoy. So take the "Simplicity > Everything" even further and give them a class option that is completely, 100% on rails from start to finish so they never have to check in and think and can simply thunk skulls from front to back with nary an issue or a decision made.
Is that not better than forcing them to make some decisions when they want to be making no decisions?
Please do not contact or message me.
Given that an average class feature is comparable in complexity to learning two spells, and wizards have the largest spell list, yeah, wizards are high complexity.
I would be okay with your suggested fixes. And that’s mighty big of you.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Therin lies the complexity.
You don't pay a mechanic because they know how to turn a wrench. You pay them because they have 100 different wrenches and know which one to turn.
Thank you.
The problem gets to be in the actual doing of it. Flat bonuses are a tough thing to add in bounded accuracy. Luckily, I don't have to actually do it, just complain about it on the Internet.
A couple of thoughts on this post in no particular order:
1) Wizard is a very complex class. It has numerous options and choices that you have to make at level 1 + more and more options you have to make as the levels progress. Comparing spells to trading cards is a bad comparison because A) Trading cards are much shorter and simpler than spells and B) most of what is on them is just flavor text. Also, other spellcasters, such as Sorcerers, have Sorcery Points which means that spellcasting isn't their only complex feature.
2) No one thinks that simplicity is better than everything else, all they believe is that simple options are easier to play and a lot of people want/need those options. Likewise, players who like simplicity don't want zero choices. They just want a bit less choices than some other classes have, and they want for those choices to not be overwhelmingly complicated.
3) That being said, I do like the idea of "Foundation Classes" that are designed to be options that are easy to play and available to new players. That being said, adding more core classes would just mean putting more pages, systems, and rules in the next PHB. And doing this just to create classes that only a relatively smallish portion of D&D players really just doesn't seem fair, especially when we already have classes in place that allow for players who like simplicity to be able to play. Honestly, adding a bunch more "simple" classes is not necessary, what is necessary however is to not take away the most beloved simple option in the game. Add in a new complex instead if you already are proposing adding more classes to the game.
Just open a new tab, quote it there, and then copy and paste it into the other tab. It's a weird system, but it works. Anyways, I didn't see that post; so it would be nice if you could quote it here.
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.Not really. Just make it a damage bonus instead of a flat attack bonus (for example, the Brute monster feature, though that would likely be overpowered).
Thanks. I appreciate the tip.
This was my proposal.
And this my question about one of your arguments. I think most of context of lost in the thread and I don't think I did the quoting right.
Sorry if it comes off as rude, it's not my intention.
Actually, dex-based ranged battlemaster is a fearsome thing, because maneuvers work with ranged weapons. Trip Attack a flying creature, and it falls to the ground like a downed Messerschmidt. Though it's too complicated, apparently) Also, I actually played a dex paladin with a spy background, an Illuminati kind of guy with a mission to hunt forbidden relics. 'twas cool.
What is not controversial is that is how it was implemented in 5E and 5E has enjoyed tremendous success.
Logically magic is by its very nature physics-breaking, complex, powerful and even its weakest spells are able to accomplish things in a primitive world comparable to what we can only due today with modern technology can do and in some cases things modern technology can't even do. Classes that use that literally awesome physics-breaking power should naturally be more complex IMO.
Suggesting someone who does not tap into magic should be able to do the same sorts of things as someone who does is like saying a martial arts expert with a sword today should be able to devastate an entire city just like a physicist with a thermonuclear weapon can.
"[X] is popular, therefore [X] is perfect" has never really been a good argument to make. 5e is popular, yes. So was 3.5e, back in the day. Was considered the most successful edition of the game by far. Did that make it perfect?
Clearly not.
5e is good. Its popularity does not, however, make it perfect. Let's try and keep that in mind.
Please do not contact or message me.
That is not true. I have personally have played all of the following which are not on your list:
1. I played a rolled stat V. Human Battlemaster fighter with high strength and high dexterity who had both GWM and Sharpshooter. She had a 18 strength and 18 Dexterity at level 6, criminal background and a high stealth. For fighting style she had protection. She had a 12 constitution. If I had to do it over again I would have taken a strength ASI instead of GWM.
2. I played a V.Human Arcane Archer with superior technique fighting style and the martial adept feat. She was the favorite fighter I have ever played. She was on point buy and finished with an 8 strength, 16 Dexterity, 20 Intelligence and 10 constitution at the end of the campaign (15th level). She also had Observant, Shadow Touched (Cause Fear), Fey Touched (Hex) and Telepathic feats.
3. I played a Glasya Tiefling Arcane Archer again with superior technique fighting style and the martial adept feat and sharpshooter (which worked with darts and quick toss from her fighting style). She also had magic initiate feat with charm person, Friends and Green Flame Blade and took the actor feat at 12th level. She had a 17 Charisma, 16 Dexterity, 14 Intelligence at start. She took the actor feat at 12th level. She could deal a ton of damage on an opening alpha round with Action Surge getting 4 attacks (later 6) with her bow, one with grasping arrow and one with menacing attack, and then throw a sharpshooter dart with quick toss. if all those landed (which they usually didn't) that was 4d8+1d4+4d6+65 damage (average 99.5 damage at 6th level, 134.5 at 12th level) with additional effects including one enemy who is slowed and takes more damage when he moves and another that is frightened and she still had another arcane shot to use in the future. Again she had a 10 constitution.
4. I played a Shaddar Kai battlemaster with sharpshooter, thrown weapon fighting and a 20 strength who primarily used silvered darts (and had the quick toss maneuver). She also had a 10 constitution.
5. There are broadly two different variations on Grappler I have seen and neither of them use the grappler feat. The first, which is more common, uses unarmed fighting style and the Tavern Brawler feat (I have played this one). The second uses battlemaster, skill expert feat and Grappling Strike maneuver. The grappler feat is not a good feat for a grappler fighter. For a Rogue Grapple build I could see it (although still weak) but it offers nothing at all that I can see for a fighter.
I also rarely see any fighters take great weapon fighting any more. Usually it is defense or blind fighting although personally I take superior technique.
Now I have seen a lot of builds close to your examples, but I hardly think they are ubiquitous as you claim and I have seen many players deviate from these.
I never said it made it perfect, but it is far more popular than 3.5E was. I don't think they are comparable in terms of popularity and to be honest I do not think 3.5E was as popular as 1E either.
More to the point though, while popularity does not make perfect it does imply that players like the game construct. I they didn't it would not be popular and I certainly think a more complicated game will drive away some players.
Based on what people choose to actually play, reducing the complexity of spellcasters and high level play would be popular.