One of the disconnect issues, I think, is that Simple Fighter folks believe subclasses are an awesome place for complexity, depth, and engagement to live. It seems like the natural compromise point.
Issue: we have eight years of evidence that Wizards is not capable of creating the punchy, powerful, and transformative subclasses they would need to make that idea work. They've done so ONCE, since the release of R5e - the Hexblade. And the community hates Hexblades because they play well with multiclassing and allow new playstyles... exactly the way a subclasses should.
Given eight years of almost total failure, why should anyone believe that subclasses in 1DD will be worth talking about? Our first crop in the Expert document certainly weren't anything to write home about, ne?
I think there are a lot of well designed subclasses. There are also some really lame ones. And some overpowered ones. And some middle of the road. The Expert UA subclasses were bad, and I told them as much.
But that's why I suggested other options too. If giving players a range of simple to complex choices doesn't work for everyone, then I'd like to see new simple classes for Priests and Mages, and a new complex class for Warriors (that is more flexible thematically than monks or barbarians). Experts have Rogues. They just need to make those better than this recent attempt.
Issue: we have eight years of evidence that Wizards is not capable of creating the punchy, powerful, and transformative subclasses they would need to make that idea work.
I'm not sure if they're not capable or just not willing. The core problem is that if you want to add more stuff to subclasses, you need to remove stuff from base classes. You could play a fighter in 5e without a subclass and you'd be... pretty much fine.
Stego: Advanced maneuvers and fighting styles is exactly the sort of thing I would like to see.
BoringBard: I explained why it isn't enough already, but I will do so again. Please note that it isn't, in any way, "for funsies", and claiming that is our only reason is both dismissive and disingenuous. I like complexity in the form of interesting and unique features, with new and better options at higher levels. And this is true regardless of whether I am playing a spellcaster or a martial character.
The idea that all new players should play a Fighter is silly. Why bring a new player into a fantasy game and then force them to play the least fantastic option available? And the idea that new players will want to play a Fighter over other options doesn't fit with my own experiences. I currently run a D&D program at my library. Over the past 3 years I have introduced the game to almost 20 new players. I let them choose between six classes (bard, cleric, druid, fighter, rogue, and wizard), and the only time anyone has played a fighter is when they didn't pick a class and so were given a pregenerated character that happened to be a fighter. To say that again: when I ask new players, kids who have never played D&D before, what class they want to play...none of them pick fighter. They want magic because magic is fun, unique, interesting, etc.
The same happened with my son's friends (age 12): druid, wizard, cleric, and bard.
Do some of the new players struggle with the intricacies of the spells? Sure. But they all have fun playing and none of them have asked to switch to something simpler. And all of them have somehow managed to learn the ins and outs of spellcasting after a few sessions. (Oops, I tried to avoid any snark but it slipped in.)
Don't misunderstand me: I am not saying the game shouldn't have simple options. There are definitely players who prefer that, and I would never say they don't matter. In fact, more should be done to allow for simple spellcasters (arcane, divine, and primal). And what I (and others) have been advocating for is to also ensure that martial classes can have the same amount of complexity (with increasing meaningful options at higher levels) that the casters have always enjoyed.
I think the Paladin makes a great template for this. You can play them without any thought at all, converting all spell slots into smites and just hitting stuff every round. Or you can carefully select spells for their utility and never smite.
Firstly, let me say that you are suggesting adding complexity to increase the “depth and engagement” of the game, because you enjoy that complexity and “depth and engagement”. Therefore, you are advocating for these changes to gain more fun for yourself, pointing that out is not being “disengenious”.
Anyways, you are completely missing my point: my point is not “that all new players should play a Fighter”, it's that all players who enjoy/want/need a simpler option should have an option like that available to them.
Yes, not all new players or players who like simplicity will play a Fighter, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, Fighter is the most popular class in D&D by a long shot, and that's because there are numerous people who enjoy, love, and often need a "simple" Fighter to help them adjust to the game or to help them play with the level of complexity that is most important to them. No, not every new player or player who seeks simplicity will want to play a Fighter, but it is great and wonderful to have that option available to them to fall back on (because sometimes you fall backwards and just can't control that) if they feel they want or need it. (Before people say this, Fighter is not popular because of Battle Master. 40% of Fighters are Champions compared to only 17% of them being Battle Masters.)
Not only does data contradict you, but I too, have played with dozens upon dozens of new players learning the game. Many (not all) of them played Fighter without anyone telling or advising them to do so, and they loved and enjoyed the class because they had a great experience with it and it helped introduce them to the game. To be honest, when I was new to the game a couple years back (before it became a super-hobby for me) I struggled to understand how the game really worked. I started out as a Sorcerer, but was baffled by everything and couldn't understand how it worked, despite the fact that my friends tried to help me learn it. So I started playing a Champion Fighter instead, and well... Look where I am now. (*Humbly brags*)
Why do you say you want to see simplicity in the game and then try to get rid of what is the most popular, beloved, and helpful, simple class in the game? On one hand, you advocate for options for all types of players, on the other hand, you fight to get rid of "the simple option" that has been useful and wonderful for so many people. Let me tell you this: I and many, many others love Fighter. By making it's base-class complex, you take that option away from us.
You can literally have all your complexity in another martial class. So why do you want to put it in Fighter? Yes, spellcasting should be more easily accessible to newbs, but making martials less accessible to those types of players doesn't help further that goal at all. The "simple players" love Fighter. Don't take Fighter away from them because "Oh, you probably might get some more options later."
___________________
Fighter was invaluable for me as a new player, if that means I'm not smart enough to grasp what you guys could the second you flipped open a D&D rule-book and began reading, then so be it. But let me say this: some people love "super simple", and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people love "super complex", and there is also nothing wrong with that. So while disagreeing with me is okay (if a bit frustrating), please don't tell me that believing what I believe is wrong or bad merely because you disagree.
It seems like my main point was missed (not by all): I don’t want to get rid of simple options.
I want simple and complex options for all archetypes. Simplicity shouldn’t be tied to martial classes. There should be simple arcane, divine, and primal classes too. Likewise, there should be a complex martial option.
I’d like to think there is no way for anyone to disagree with this, but this is the internet, so I look forward to hearing how wrong I am. (And yes, I did see the people who agreed with me a while back, thanks for that.)
I think that there is an elephant in the room that fighters, rogues, and all the rest of the non-magical classes face when they have to do stuff in combat.
The combat system is fundamentally abstract. It's simple. It's straight-forward. But it's a little...boring. Move (maybe) > Swing/shoot weapon > Hit (and do damage), or don't > Repeat until done
It's a fundamental truth that combat in a tabletop game is at best an ABSTRACTION. The problem is that for the "martial classes," the abstraction takes away most of the meaningful choices they have to make *in combat*. Spellcasters get to pick from a variety of cool spells, some of which are unlimited (cantrips). Martials...don't. For a class called "Fighter" to not have a lot of options of what to do in combat seems like a missed opportunity. One option would be to improve the game's overall "stunt" system, so that all the classes can do meaningful tricks in combat, and then just make sure that fighters are just...better at it. That would be my personal preference. Short of that, maybe you could do it with an exceptions-based system.
What IF Fighters had a variety of Stunts/Maneuvers/Techniques to select that are theirs to use "at-will," and that *scale* with level, just like cantrips do. All of them should be fundamentally equal in power, but more interesting than just "I whack it with a sword," or "I shoot it with my bow." What's a reasonable number of options, especially if we're talking about a class that DOESN'T get higher-level powers? And then what do you do to make those things scale as you level? Or maybe they should be able to set up more complex maneuvers somehow. It wouldn't need the granularity of spell-levels, but some "higher-power abilities" might be nice. Those are tricky questions, but answering them would also tell you how to design a simple caster. In a way, it's what the Sorcerer hints at being, but isn't.
How would you balance a 20-level slot-less caster? Could you? I don't know, but it would be a very interesting thought exercise.
I want simple and complex options for all archetypes. Simplicity shouldn’t be tied to martial classes. There should be simple arcane, divine, and primal classes too. Likewise, there should be a complex martial option.
I actually think sorcerer could be the barbarian of magic world. Just raw power. Could be in a form of Pyromancer subclass.
I can see the argument for a simple fighter/[insert martial here]. However, the nature of DND means (at least for me) there’s very few builds as just a fighter I’d be happy with, in terms of mechanics and having an impact on the game like a spellcaster. And having to multi-class and use the same feats, same weapons, and same level splits every time is not fun. I think that martials with optional features is the best option - perhaps similar to Eldritch Invocations as Yurei said earlier. That way, the level of complexity would entirely be up to the player, as the ‘skills’ could be as varied as flat damage increase to being able to prevent an enemy moving if they fail a save.
I would massively enjoy a more complex fighter. The issue with removing the training-wheel class, in my opinion, is a non-issue - if the new player is having trouble, they should be able to ask for help from the other players or the DM. Playing a class they don’t need to to think about doesn’t help them learn the game, and the dropping-in at the deep end would still occur when switching from a a fighter to say, a druid. That is, if you believe spellcasting classes are complex, which I personally do not. A resource system for fighters, even a simple one, would help new players if you believe in hand-holding them every step of the way (which I do not).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
Miley Cyrus music should be outlawed by the Geneva Convention.
Question for Boring Bard, Xalthu, and all the other Simple Fighter Crowd folks pushing to rip everything resembling deprh, engagement, and decision making from not only the fighter class, but also the rogue, the monk, the barbarian, the sorcerer, the cleric, and everything else they can convince Wizards to reduce to one single action for the entirety of their twenty-level run.
Where are you willing to put that stuff back in?
Thus far the answer has been "a different game where the evil bastards who want it don't get to ruin the perfect, sublime, beautiful simplicity of R5e." But you all know that can't happen, right? Not if the game wants to stay on top. So where are you willing to enthusiastically support greater depth of play for advanced and veteran players who're bored shitless by Simple Everything and want more meat in their games than Tactical TicTacToe allows for?
You can't keep telling us to just stop playing. I don't recall ever telling Simple Fighter Crowdies to stop playing. At worst I told you to learn the rules, which doesn't seem like a criminal ask in a game. And I didn't ask you to do it immediately, or alone. So stop telling me to quit, hm?
I can see the argument for a simple fighter/[insert martial here]. However, the nature of DND means (at least for me) there’s very few builds as just a fighter I’d be happy with, in terms of mechanics and having an impact on the game like a spellcaster. And having to multi-class and use the same feats, same weapons, and same level splits every time is not fun. I think that martials with optional features is the best option - perhaps similar to Eldritch Invocations as Yurei said earlier. That way, the level of complexity would entirely be up to the player, as the ‘skills’ could be as varied as flat damage increase to being able to prevent an enemy moving if they fail a save.
One issue with 'simple' options is that Wizards is historically unable to balance complexity. If we look at examples where Wizards has actually created both the simple option and the complex option, the complex option is just better. For example, compare Sorcerer and Wizard. Or Champion and Battle Master.
So much of this debate seems so come down to just a difference in personal experiences and what kind of characters people like to play. No one is going to convince someone that their personal experiences are more important than another's. Because they aren't. And everyone has preferred character types and playstyles. What is fun for one person won't be fun for another. We have to just accept that people enjoy different things and play different ways.
If you love spellcasters, you might wish fighters operated the same way, so you could try a new class that also offers the same style of mechanical choices that draws you to spellcasters. But if fighters already appeal to you, then you like them for what they are, and you don't want them to turn into re-skinned versions of the classes that don't excite you. You might not want the equivalent of a spells with a sword. This can apply to any comparison between classes. If the next UA completely rewrote wizards so they only had 3 abilities that recovered on a short rest, so many wizard players would be unhappy. But if they offered a new class that did the same, and left the old wizard for the players that love them, we would all benefit. What one person considers deep an engaging mechanics, another person sees as a chore that adds nothing to the experience. What one sees as freedom, another sees as constraints.
It's perfectly normal to be drawn to different classes. Everyone has classes they feel called to more than others. Whether it's the mechanics or the lore, there are going to be fantasies that excite each of us differently. For some, just rolling to hit 3 times a turn might be boring. For others, avoiding complicated mechanics to focus on their imagination of wading through a horde of foes is far more entertaining than any math will ever be. For some, casting spells and singing songs to charm the local bartender is their greatest fantasy. For others it's the last thing on earth that would bring them joy.
There is another thread going at the same time as this one over changes to rangers. Changes that are welcome from people who never saw rangers as being very appealing before, and resisted by people who liked them the way they were. I was resistant to those changes myself because I liked rangers. After playtesting, I saw that the changes made them feel even more like the class that I enjoyed, to me. Maybe that was just luck. Maybe I'm one of the few who will feel that way. On the surface, it feels like a good example to point to for justifying changes to fighters as well. But it's important to also note that those changes actually simplified the ranger’s mechanics, not complicated them. It was the simplification that gave them more flexibility. And some people will still always feel like their favorite class was ruined. For them, that's the truth.
There can even be differences in perception based on how we play, and who we play with. A group of teens that grew up on Critical Role, playing online with digital tools, might have a very different experience than a group of their parents playing around the dining room table on their one night off a month. All of these experiences are valid and vital to the game. They can also blind us to the experiences of others if we aren't willing to listen.
The game is both complex and simple. Compared to a lot of other RPGs, it's a piece of cake. But when it's your first RPG, there's a lot to learn, and a lot of unspoken rules. I have a player that came into the game with infinite imagination, ready to roleplay her heart out. She is a fantastic player to have! But even knowing what to do when I called for a Persuasion roll was a skill that she had to learn. It helped, for her, to bring a tablet to the table and use digital tools to make the rolls. She also made beautiful spell cards and flowcharts to organize all of her abilities. She is very smart, and put a lot of work into learning the game. It still takes a great deal of effort to play this game. We should make it as easy as possible for these wonderful players.
Someone who only ever uses digital tools might never think about things like rolls and modifiers being something you have to learn. The tool does it for you. The tool tracks your dice pools, your per day abilities, your spell slots, and even what actions you have available to take each turn. You might even have a battlemap to move your characters on and track conditions. The tool removes all of those elements of complication from learning the game. It's a very different experience form someone using pen and paper. It is no more or less meaningful than another person's, it's just different.
So the only way I can see this debate ever being resolved is by listening to each other. Accepting that everyone has different experiences. And that everyone enjoys classes for different reasons.
The best thing the game could do is to try to give everyone the opportunity to play what they love, no matter their skill level. That means both simple classes and more complicated classes, that all offer the same general fantasy. And both simple and complex paths, through subclasses and ability choices, within certain classes. It means leaving people's favorites mostly as they are. And offering new things to people who want something different.
Because the only real issue here is that some people want to try out a particular fantasy, but the options available don't fit the mechanical style they like to play. While other people are living their fantasy already, with the mechanical style that they enjoy. We shouldn't be looking for ways to make one mechanic apply to every class. That's been tried before and wasn't incredibly popular. We should be looking for ways to give mechanical options to every fantasy. So if you want to play a heroic warrior, you can make them as simple as you want, or choose a different class/subclass/path and complicate them as much as you want. If you want to cast amazing magic spells, you should be able to do the same.
Some people want to try out the fantasy of the fighter, but mechanically the current options don't suit them. Some people want to try out the fantasy of a wizard, but they run into the same problems. The same applies to clerics, and rogues, and everything else. We can't change class mechanics for some people without ruining it for others. Unless we are very careful in providing paths for everyone. The best option is probably more classes. Baring that, we have to be understanding that everyone has different needs and try to find solutions that work for everyone.
Question for Boring Bard, Xalthu, and all the other Simple Fighter Crowd folks pushing to rip everything resembling deprh, engagement, and decision making from not only the fighter class, but also the rogue, the monk, the barbarian, the sorcerer, the cleric, and everything else they can convince Wizards to reduce to one single action for the entirety of their twenty-level run.
Where are you willing to put that stuff back in?
Thus far the answer has been "a different game where the evil bastards who want it don't get to ruin the perfect, sublime, beautiful simplicity of R5e." But you all know that can't happen, right? Not if the game wants to stay on top. So where are you willing to enthusiastically support greater depth of play for advanced and veteran players who're bored shitless by Simple Everything and want more meat in their games than Tactical TicTacToe allows for?
You can't keep telling us to just stop playing. I don't recall ever telling Simple Fighter Crowdies to stop playing. At worst I told you to learn the rules, which doesn't seem like a criminal ask in a game. And I didn't ask you to do it immediately, or alone. So stop telling me to quit, hm?
I really, really, enjoy when you go on a tear. Your writing is very entertaining, and you usually make good points. But it gets really difficult to have a productive conversation when you insert words into people's mouths, or keyboards as it were.
First, I can't answer for the opinions of anyone else on the thread, but speaking for myself, I haven't suggested removing anything from any class. I haven't suggested making everything simple. I've never said to stop playing. (On the other hand, you have the complex fighter crowd who's said, learn the rules better or you don't get to play.) I've never said to take anything away at all from anyone. What I and some others have argued in favor of is not adding in more complexity to the base fighter class. We've said keep simple as an option. Some people want simple. That's all, an option. Some new players want simple. Some veteran players want simple. Some people prefer simple.
I have a person I play with sometimes who's an anesthesiologist. If she makes a small math error at work, people literally die. She is more than capable of understanding and manipulating the most complex systems D&D or any other RPG can throw at her. But when she's playing, she wants a break from that. She wants to hang out with the people at the table, and play a game not feel like she needs to do homework between sessions to figure out a bunch of subsystems. If there are no simple options, she and people like her would just bounce off the game. So, you're basically just saying to her, sorry, git gud or you don't get to play? Sounds pretty gatekeepy to me.
And if you don't think fighters already have complexity in play, well, I guess you're kind of telling me you've never played a fighter. But if you want more complex in your white room fighters, there's battle master, as many have brought up. There's echo night, which has lot of complexity. There's Eldritch knight, which gets spell choices. There's rune knight which has meaningful choices, some of which are even level gated, which some people have advocated for. There's things like arcane archer, which give you choices (another example of a subclass that people love to crap on until they play one). Then a step down there's cavaliers and psi knights which, granted, don't get choices at level up, but do get choices in combat. if you want something just a little bit more complex than a champion, there's samurai. (And, PDKs, well, exist, I suppose.) Beyond the subclasses, fighters, as we all know, get those extra feats. And they are typically SAD, so they can spend those feats on things besides asi. You want more options, take fey touched, take telekenetic, take any number of other feats, which can layer on even more complexity than the subclass does. If you don't want complexity, just keep taking the asi, and get some passive bonuses and keep it simple. The current version gives you choices. There's a pretty wide range of complexity in fighters, and that's anchored by the champion at the simple end. Why do you insist that the option be removed from people that want it?
Also, I'm not trying to say fighters are perfect. But, personally, I think what they lack is out of combat options (I realize I'm far from the first person to make this observation). Someone earlier mentioned that rogues are pretty similar to fighters in a combat, as far as limited options. But the reason people don't think rogues are boring is that after the fight is over, rogues will be the one picking the lock on the chest or scouting out the next room. What fighters really lack is something to do in the other two pillars of the game. Though they have started to try and address that by adding in some skill proficiencies to some subclasses, but still, usually, there's going to be someone else who does it better. But I think if you can give them a more defined out of combat role, that could also go a long way toward making them more fun for people who want more complexity.
On a slightly different note, I do think we need to better define terms. Are we talking about giving more options in play, or at level up? Because those are very different conversations. And really, not having options at level up is a more systemic issue, with the exception of warlocks, and spell selections, really no one gets many choices there.
"Simple Fighter" it is, with absolutely no option for anyone looking for more advanced, nuanced, or engaging play. Y'all can slam the door to the entire Warrior class group closed in the faces of anyone who wants more from their character than "CHAMPION SMASH YAAY!"
When players drift away from your tables, though? When you ask why and they say "I dunno man, it's just boring... "? When the hobby starts to recede again because it can't retain players past their first campaign? Y'all DO NOT get to complain, and y'all can also do us all the favor of squarely accepting the blame for that recession.
Yurei, it looks like you keep having fights with people that don't exist. In this whole thread, no one has ever said that you should play another game instead. No one has ridiculed you or shut any doors in your face. No one has mocked the basic premise of your request for options.
We have tried to show how warrior classes currently have a lot of customization choices available. A wide variety of subclasses, feats, and choices that are better than even some other classes in many ways. How even the 'simple fighter' isn't as bland as it might look on the surface.
We have tried to suggest other ways to improve on that too. Options that we could add, while also not ostracizing the people who like what they already have.
We have asked what compromises you might be open to, and what ideas you might have that could so the same
We have tried to show how everyone finds enjoyment in different things. And how the things you consider to be 'deep and engaging choices' do not feel the same to other players. How others might view them as numerical constraints on their creativity, and stifling to their fun.
We have tried to show how different experiences can affect our views.
And we've done all this in the face of some rather hostile and ugly insults and characterizations. I keep trying to help create a space of understanding. I keep telling myself that you're just very passionate about this and I shouldn't take the insults personally, even when you mock people close to me that I have opened up about.
But we aren't getting anywhere. There has to be some understanding of other points of view. There has to be respect given to the people that have different needs. There has to be a willingness to compromise. Until we can all at least recognize a common ground to start on, this argument is just going to go in the same circles forever.
It seems like my main point was missed (not by all): I don’t want to get rid of simple options.
I want simple and complex options for all archetypes. Simplicity shouldn’t be tied to martial classes. There should be simple arcane, divine, and primal classes too. Likewise, there should be a complex martial option.
I’d like to think there is no way for anyone to disagree with this, but this is the internet, so I look forward to hearing how wrong I am. (And yes, I did see the people who agreed with me a while back, thanks for that.)
You say you want simple options for all archetypes, but then you advocate to turn the one simple martial into something only advanced players can easily play. Yes, there should be a simpler spellcasting class, but removing the simple martial option doesn't help with that whatsoever. Why does Fighter have to be the complex martial? You can literally make any other martial complex, yet you choose to complicate the one class that is beloved for being simple.
Everybody should be able to play the game. Taking away Fighter, which is a wonderful and excellent option that allows new players to more easily play the game, just serves to make it harder for that aforementioned goal to be fulfilled.
Yes, "there should be a complex martial option." But there should also be a simple martial option, and taking away that simple martial option to turn it into the complex martial you seek makes no sense, especially when you can make any other martial the complex one instead.
If I'm misunderstanding you, then I genuinely am sorry. But you said you are looking to give Fighter "the same level of complexity as a Wizard" in your original post on this thread, regardless of the fact that that statement directly contradicts what you said in the post quoted above.
Question for Boring Bard, Xalthu, and all the other Simple Fighter Crowd folks pushing to rip everything resembling deprh, engagement, and decision making from not only the fighter class, but also the rogue, the monk, the barbarian, the sorcerer, the cleric, and everything else they can convince Wizards to reduce to one single action for the entirety of their twenty-level run.
Where are you willing to put that stuff back in?
Thus far the answer has been "a different game where the evil bastards who want it don't get to ruin the perfect, sublime, beautiful simplicity of R5e." But you all know that can't happen, right? Not if the game wants to stay on top. So where are you willing to enthusiastically support greater depth of play for advanced and veteran players who're bored shitless by Simple Everything and want more meat in their games than Tactical TicTacToe allows for?
You can't keep telling us to just stop playing. I don't recall ever telling Simple Fighter Crowdies to stop playing. At worst I told you to learn the rules, which doesn't seem like a criminal ask in a game. And I didn't ask you to do it immediately, or alone. So stop telling me to quit, hm?
Firstly, no one here is advocating "to rip everything resembling depth, engagement, and decision making from" the game, we are merely arguing for people to let us keep our literal one simple martial class in the game. Secondly, no one has told you to quit playing D&D. In fact, our whole literal goal is to ensure that every type of player, both new and advanced, is able to have options they can play and enjoy in the game.
Anyways, the answer to your question is that we put the additional complexity in subclasses, backgrounds, and feats. Personally, I think that Fighter subclasses need to be expanded; it's hard to make 5 features drastically change the way you play a class, but 6+ features can. As for backgrounds: 1DD has already got you covered: they made backgrounds customizable and flavorful, while allowing for simpler alternatives for those who want them. And feats already do a great job at this, though they could do even better. Feats allow you to get cool and unique features for your character, and there are just so many feats that it's basically impossible to run out of options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 & explainHERE.
It seems odd to me that on different topics, people will say that WotC has to be open to all styles of play and that players should feel that they can play the type of character they want to play. But on this topic, some of the same people are like "NO!!! I don't care what style of play you find fun, only my kind matters." Like the topic of floating racial ASI's from Tasha's where some wanted fixed ASI's and others wanted the floating ASI because players should be able to play how they want without feeling restricted. But for some, it is flipflopped and the free-floating ASI crowd and player choice advocates are digging in their heels for no simple fighter, only complex fighters count because no one else's fun matters. Or vice versa.
Of the 12 classes in the PHB which ones are simple to play, and which are complex?
I'm serious. Which do you consider complex, and which are simple? Is the Fighter the only simple class? Is wizard the only complex class? Are they 50/50 simple/complex?
I really hadn't given it much thought. I don't see any of them as overly simple or overly complex. Simple or complex, they all can be played poorly.
And I really would like to see a Fighter with more options. At its core they should be the pinnacle of fighting prowess. But at the same time, I can see how having a spectrum of complexity among classes as an overall benefit for all styles of play.
I know this would never happen, but maybe it would be best if they added a 13th class and called it Battle Master, make it its own standalone class with their own subclasses so you basically have a "fighter" that is more complex and the standard Fighter leave as they are, maybe with some better scaling. I don't know what the Warlord was like, but would something like that be a good addition?
In the end, though, since this is the UA forum, all of these arguments could be a complete waste of time as we have no idea what the Warrior UA will bring. Maybe Fighters will be more complex and have unique abilities tied to how they use weapons, different effects when using B, P, S weapons, or Heavy, Versatile, Two-Handed, etc. Or maybe they will remain relatively untouched, but when the Mage group comes out, we find out that spells and spellcasters get the hammer taken to them and simplified and power throttled down. Who knows.
It seems like my main point was missed (not by all): I don’t want to get rid of simple options.
I want simple and complex options for all archetypes. Simplicity shouldn’t be tied to martial classes. There should be simple arcane, divine, and primal classes too. Likewise, there should be a complex martial option.
I’d like to think there is no way for anyone to disagree with this, but this is the internet, so I look forward to hearing how wrong I am. (And yes, I did see the people who agreed with me a while back, thanks for that.)
You say you want simple options for all archetypes, but then you advocate to turn the one simple martial into something only advanced players can easily play. Yes, there should be a simpler spellcasting class, but removing the simple martial option doesn't help with that whatsoever. Why does Fighter have to be the complex martial? You can literally make any other martial complex, yet you choose to complicate the one class that is beloved for being simple.
Hang on. You're saying the Fighter is the only simple martial? What do you call the Barbarian? The Rogue? Is deciding when to Rage or understanding how to gain Sneak Attack really that complex? Which one would you like to see as the complex martial?
You say you want simple options for all archetypes, but then you advocate to turn the one simple martial into something only advanced players can easily play.
It seems like my main point was missed (not by all): I don’t want to get rid of simple options.
I want simple and complex options for all archetypes. Simplicity shouldn’t be tied to martial classes. There should be simple arcane, divine, and primal classes too. Likewise, there should be a complex martial option.
I’d like to think there is no way for anyone to disagree with this, but this is the internet, so I look forward to hearing how wrong I am. (And yes, I did see the people who agreed with me a while back, thanks for that.)
You say you want simple options for all archetypes, but then you advocate to turn the one simple martial into something only advanced players can easily play. Yes, there should be a simpler spellcasting class, but removing the simple martial option doesn't help with that whatsoever. Why does Fighter have to be the complex martial? You can literally make any other martial complex, yet you choose to complicate the one class that is beloved for being simple.
Hang on. You're saying the Fighter is the only simple martial? What do you call the Barbarian? The Rogue? Is deciding when to Rage or understanding how to gain Sneak Attack really that complex? Which one would you like to see as the complex martial?
Fighter is the one simple martial with a versatile class design that was made to be available to new players. Rogue may not be complicated, but it's certainly not simple. And Barbarian is a massively limiting class concept, among other things. Anyways, as I stated several times in the post you literally just quoted, feel free to make any non-Fighter martial the complicated class.
It seems odd to me that on different topics, people will say that WotC has to be open to all styles of play and that players should feel that they can play the type of character they want to play. But on this topic, some of the same people are like "NO!!! I don't care what style of play you find fun, only my kind matters." Like the topic of floating racial ASI's from Tasha's where some wanted fixed ASI's and others wanted the floating ASI because players should be able to play how they want without feeling restricted. But for some, it is flipflopped and the free-floating ASI crowd and player choice advocates are digging in their heels for no simple fighter, only complex fighters count because no one else's fun matters. Or vice versa.
Of the 12 classes in the PHB which ones are simple to play, and which are complex?
I'm serious. Which do you consider complex, and which are simple? Is the Fighter the only simple class? Is wizard the only complex class? Are they 50/50 simple/complex?
I really hadn't given it much thought. I don't see any of them as overly simple or overly complex. Simple or complex, they all can be played poorly.
And I really would like to see a Fighter with more options. At its core they should be the pinnacle of fighting prowess. But at the same time, I can see how having a spectrum of complexity among classes as an overall benefit for all styles of play.
I know this would never happen, but maybe it would be best if they added a 13th class and called it Battle Master, make it its own standalone class with their own subclasses so you basically have a "fighter" that is more complex and the standard Fighter leave as they are, maybe with some better scaling. I don't know what the Warlord was like, but would something like that be a good addition?
In the end, though, since this is the UA forum, all of these arguments could be a complete waste of time as we have no idea what the Warrior UA will bring. Maybe Fighters will be more complex and have unique abilities tied to how they use weapons, different effects when using B, P, S weapons, or Heavy, Versatile, Two-Handed, etc. Or maybe they will remain relatively untouched, but when the Mage group comes out, we find out that spells and spellcasters get the hammer taken to them and simplified and power throttled down. Who knows.
Absolutely. All of this could be moot when the next UA comes out.
I hadn't put much conscious thought into this either before these conversations. I know I instinctually understood it. And I definitely saw its effects on my players. But I didn't think of classifying the class options by complexity, or looking for solutions with sweeping changes. I just found ways to adapt.
I think all class Groups, now that we are using them, need a range of options. From the mechanically simple to the mechanically complex. So that everyone can fulfill their fantasy in the way they are comfortable. It is also important to note that complex mechanics does not automatically mean a more complex or interesting experience. And that very complex characters can be played with very simple mechanics. The level of complexity only fulfills one aspect of enjoyment, and is different for different people.
For Warriors, I would say that Fighters have the most potential for mechanical simplicity. Barbarians are close, but are limited by theme. Monks are incredibly complex. They probably meet almost all of the needs of players who want more decisions. They have movement options, battlefield control options, many combat maneuvers, resources to track, scaling power, new abilities almost every level, even exploration and social skills. They should be the perfect go-to choice for the people who want a complex martial. So why aren't they? I suspect it's because of their theme. You could easily re-skin a monk to be any kind of fighter you could imagine. But the default theme is difficult for people to overlook, just as it is with the barbarian. This is why you and I both suggested a 'Warlord' option for an advanced fighter, without the thematic constraints.
For Mages, Wizards have the most options and take the most work. But in some respects they are easier than Sorcerers and Warlocks. They don't have to deal with metamagic or invocations. Warlocks only have a few spell slots, but they have to work hard during the character creation phase (including leveling up). Their decisions are front loaded. The same with Sorcerers. Wizards make their decisions on the fly. That's probably why people think they are more complex, even though they have fewer things to track. Simplicity actually gives them flexibility. No Mages are completely easy. Even their simplest classes are still middle of the road for complexity.
Priests are a mixed bag. Both Clerics and Druids require learning every spell at every level, since they are all open to choose each day. They also have special abilities to keep up with. On top of that, it is not immediately clear how they should be played. People wonder if they are meant for melee, healing, buffing, or battlefield control, because they can do all of these. Paladin is probably the easiest. Or at least it can be if you choose so. But it's still more complicated than a barbarian or fighter
Experts have Rogues on the easier end and Bards on the complex end. Rangers are close behind Bards. Artificers are kind of like Warlocks. A lot of decisions up front when you level up, to avoid making too many during play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One of the disconnect issues, I think, is that Simple Fighter folks believe subclasses are an awesome place for complexity, depth, and engagement to live. It seems like the natural compromise point.
Issue: we have eight years of evidence that Wizards is not capable of creating the punchy, powerful, and transformative subclasses they would need to make that idea work. They've done so ONCE, since the release of R5e - the Hexblade. And the community hates Hexblades because they play well with multiclassing and allow new playstyles... exactly the way a subclasses should.
Given eight years of almost total failure, why should anyone believe that subclasses in 1DD will be worth talking about? Our first crop in the Expert document certainly weren't anything to write home about, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
Shrug.
I think there are a lot of well designed subclasses. There are also some really lame ones. And some overpowered ones. And some middle of the road. The Expert UA subclasses were bad, and I told them as much.
But that's why I suggested other options too. If giving players a range of simple to complex choices doesn't work for everyone, then I'd like to see new simple classes for Priests and Mages, and a new complex class for Warriors (that is more flexible thematically than monks or barbarians). Experts have Rogues. They just need to make those better than this recent attempt.
I'm not sure if they're not capable or just not willing. The core problem is that if you want to add more stuff to subclasses, you need to remove stuff from base classes. You could play a fighter in 5e without a subclass and you'd be... pretty much fine.
Firstly, let me say that you are suggesting adding complexity to increase the “depth and engagement” of the game, because you enjoy that complexity and “depth and engagement”. Therefore, you are advocating for these changes to gain more fun for yourself, pointing that out is not being “disengenious”.
Anyways, you are completely missing my point: my point is not “that all new players should play a Fighter”, it's that all players who enjoy/want/need a simpler option should have an option like that available to them.
Yes, not all new players or players who like simplicity will play a Fighter, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, Fighter is the most popular class in D&D by a long shot, and that's because there are numerous people who enjoy, love, and often need a "simple" Fighter to help them adjust to the game or to help them play with the level of complexity that is most important to them. No, not every new player or player who seeks simplicity will want to play a Fighter, but it is great and wonderful to have that option available to them to fall back on (because sometimes you fall backwards and just can't control that) if they feel they want or need it. (Before people say this, Fighter is not popular because of Battle Master. 40% of Fighters are Champions compared to only 17% of them being Battle Masters.)
Not only does data contradict you, but I too, have played with dozens upon dozens of new players learning the game. Many (not all) of them played Fighter without anyone telling or advising them to do so, and they loved and enjoyed the class because they had a great experience with it and it helped introduce them to the game. To be honest, when I was new to the game a couple years back (before it became a super-hobby for me) I struggled to understand how the game really worked. I started out as a Sorcerer, but was baffled by everything and couldn't understand how it worked, despite the fact that my friends tried to help me learn it. So I started playing a Champion Fighter instead, and well... Look where I am now. (*Humbly brags*)
Why do you say you want to see simplicity in the game and then try to get rid of what is the most popular, beloved, and helpful, simple class in the game? On one hand, you advocate for options for all types of players, on the other hand, you fight to get rid of "the simple option" that has been useful and wonderful for so many people. Let me tell you this: I and many, many others love Fighter. By making it's base-class complex, you take that option away from us.
You can literally have all your complexity in another martial class. So why do you want to put it in Fighter? Yes, spellcasting should be more easily accessible to newbs, but making martials less accessible to those types of players doesn't help further that goal at all. The "simple players" love Fighter. Don't take Fighter away from them because "Oh, you probably might get some more options later."
___________________
Fighter was invaluable for me as a new player, if that means I'm not smart enough to grasp what you guys could the second you flipped open a D&D rule-book and began reading, then so be it. But let me say this: some people love "super simple", and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people love "super complex", and there is also nothing wrong with that. So while disagreeing with me is okay (if a bit frustrating), please don't tell me that believing what I believe is wrong or bad merely because you disagree.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I forgot to list my sources:
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/07/dd-and-the-most-popular-class-is.html
https://gamerant.com/dungeons-dragons-popular-classes-subclasses/
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.It seems like my main point was missed (not by all): I don’t want to get rid of simple options.
I want simple and complex options for all archetypes. Simplicity shouldn’t be tied to martial classes. There should be simple arcane, divine, and primal classes too. Likewise, there should be a complex martial option.
I’d like to think there is no way for anyone to disagree with this, but this is the internet, so I look forward to hearing how wrong I am. (And yes, I did see the people who agreed with me a while back, thanks for that.)
I think that there is an elephant in the room that fighters, rogues, and all the rest of the non-magical classes face when they have to do stuff in combat.
The combat system is fundamentally abstract. It's simple. It's straight-forward. But it's a little...boring.
Move (maybe) > Swing/shoot weapon > Hit (and do damage), or don't > Repeat until done
It's a fundamental truth that combat in a tabletop game is at best an ABSTRACTION. The problem is that for the "martial classes," the abstraction takes away most of the meaningful choices they have to make *in combat*. Spellcasters get to pick from a variety of cool spells, some of which are unlimited (cantrips). Martials...don't. For a class called "Fighter" to not have a lot of options of what to do in combat seems like a missed opportunity. One option would be to improve the game's overall "stunt" system, so that all the classes can do meaningful tricks in combat, and then just make sure that fighters are just...better at it. That would be my personal preference. Short of that, maybe you could do it with an exceptions-based system.
What IF Fighters had a variety of Stunts/Maneuvers/Techniques to select that are theirs to use "at-will," and that *scale* with level, just like cantrips do. All of them should be fundamentally equal in power, but more interesting than just "I whack it with a sword," or "I shoot it with my bow." What's a reasonable number of options, especially if we're talking about a class that DOESN'T get higher-level powers? And then what do you do to make those things scale as you level? Or maybe they should be able to set up more complex maneuvers somehow. It wouldn't need the granularity of spell-levels, but some "higher-power abilities" might be nice. Those are tricky questions, but answering them would also tell you how to design a simple caster. In a way, it's what the Sorcerer hints at being, but isn't.
How would you balance a 20-level slot-less caster? Could you? I don't know, but it would be a very interesting thought exercise.
I actually think sorcerer could be the barbarian of magic world. Just raw power. Could be in a form of Pyromancer subclass.
I can see the argument for a simple fighter/[insert martial here]. However, the nature of DND means (at least for me) there’s very few builds as just a fighter I’d be happy with, in terms of mechanics and having an impact on the game like a spellcaster. And having to multi-class and use the same feats, same weapons, and same level splits every time is not fun. I think that martials with optional features is the best option - perhaps similar to Eldritch Invocations as Yurei said earlier. That way, the level of complexity would entirely be up to the player, as the ‘skills’ could be as varied as flat damage increase to being able to prevent an enemy moving if they fail a save.
I would massively enjoy a more complex fighter. The issue with removing the training-wheel class, in my opinion, is a non-issue - if the new player is having trouble, they should be able to ask for help from the other players or the DM. Playing a class they don’t need to to think about doesn’t help them learn the game, and the dropping-in at the deep end would still occur when switching from a a fighter to say, a druid. That is, if you believe spellcasting classes are complex, which I personally do not. A resource system for fighters, even a simple one, would help new players if you believe in hand-holding them every step of the way (which I do not).
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
Miley Cyrus music should be outlawed by the Geneva Convention.
Question for Boring Bard, Xalthu, and all the other Simple Fighter Crowd folks pushing to rip everything resembling deprh, engagement, and decision making from not only the fighter class, but also the rogue, the monk, the barbarian, the sorcerer, the cleric, and everything else they can convince Wizards to reduce to one single action for the entirety of their twenty-level run.
Where are you willing to put that stuff back in?
Thus far the answer has been "a different game where the evil bastards who want it don't get to ruin the perfect, sublime, beautiful simplicity of R5e." But you all know that can't happen, right? Not if the game wants to stay on top. So where are you willing to enthusiastically support greater depth of play for advanced and veteran players who're bored shitless by Simple Everything and want more meat in their games than Tactical TicTacToe allows for?
You can't keep telling us to just stop playing. I don't recall ever telling Simple Fighter Crowdies to stop playing. At worst I told you to learn the rules, which doesn't seem like a criminal ask in a game. And I didn't ask you to do it immediately, or alone. So stop telling me to quit, hm?
Please do not contact or message me.
One issue with 'simple' options is that Wizards is historically unable to balance complexity. If we look at examples where Wizards has actually created both the simple option and the complex option, the complex option is just better. For example, compare Sorcerer and Wizard. Or Champion and Battle Master.
So much of this debate seems so come down to just a difference in personal experiences and what kind of characters people like to play. No one is going to convince someone that their personal experiences are more important than another's. Because they aren't. And everyone has preferred character types and playstyles. What is fun for one person won't be fun for another. We have to just accept that people enjoy different things and play different ways.
If you love spellcasters, you might wish fighters operated the same way, so you could try a new class that also offers the same style of mechanical choices that draws you to spellcasters. But if fighters already appeal to you, then you like them for what they are, and you don't want them to turn into re-skinned versions of the classes that don't excite you. You might not want the equivalent of a spells with a sword. This can apply to any comparison between classes. If the next UA completely rewrote wizards so they only had 3 abilities that recovered on a short rest, so many wizard players would be unhappy. But if they offered a new class that did the same, and left the old wizard for the players that love them, we would all benefit. What one person considers deep an engaging mechanics, another person sees as a chore that adds nothing to the experience. What one sees as freedom, another sees as constraints.
It's perfectly normal to be drawn to different classes. Everyone has classes they feel called to more than others. Whether it's the mechanics or the lore, there are going to be fantasies that excite each of us differently. For some, just rolling to hit 3 times a turn might be boring. For others, avoiding complicated mechanics to focus on their imagination of wading through a horde of foes is far more entertaining than any math will ever be. For some, casting spells and singing songs to charm the local bartender is their greatest fantasy. For others it's the last thing on earth that would bring them joy.
There is another thread going at the same time as this one over changes to rangers. Changes that are welcome from people who never saw rangers as being very appealing before, and resisted by people who liked them the way they were. I was resistant to those changes myself because I liked rangers. After playtesting, I saw that the changes made them feel even more like the class that I enjoyed, to me. Maybe that was just luck. Maybe I'm one of the few who will feel that way. On the surface, it feels like a good example to point to for justifying changes to fighters as well. But it's important to also note that those changes actually simplified the ranger’s mechanics, not complicated them. It was the simplification that gave them more flexibility. And some people will still always feel like their favorite class was ruined. For them, that's the truth.
There can even be differences in perception based on how we play, and who we play with. A group of teens that grew up on Critical Role, playing online with digital tools, might have a very different experience than a group of their parents playing around the dining room table on their one night off a month. All of these experiences are valid and vital to the game. They can also blind us to the experiences of others if we aren't willing to listen.
The game is both complex and simple. Compared to a lot of other RPGs, it's a piece of cake. But when it's your first RPG, there's a lot to learn, and a lot of unspoken rules. I have a player that came into the game with infinite imagination, ready to roleplay her heart out. She is a fantastic player to have! But even knowing what to do when I called for a Persuasion roll was a skill that she had to learn. It helped, for her, to bring a tablet to the table and use digital tools to make the rolls. She also made beautiful spell cards and flowcharts to organize all of her abilities. She is very smart, and put a lot of work into learning the game. It still takes a great deal of effort to play this game. We should make it as easy as possible for these wonderful players.
Someone who only ever uses digital tools might never think about things like rolls and modifiers being something you have to learn. The tool does it for you. The tool tracks your dice pools, your per day abilities, your spell slots, and even what actions you have available to take each turn. You might even have a battlemap to move your characters on and track conditions. The tool removes all of those elements of complication from learning the game. It's a very different experience form someone using pen and paper. It is no more or less meaningful than another person's, it's just different.
So the only way I can see this debate ever being resolved is by listening to each other. Accepting that everyone has different experiences. And that everyone enjoys classes for different reasons.
The best thing the game could do is to try to give everyone the opportunity to play what they love, no matter their skill level. That means both simple classes and more complicated classes, that all offer the same general fantasy. And both simple and complex paths, through subclasses and ability choices, within certain classes. It means leaving people's favorites mostly as they are. And offering new things to people who want something different.
Because the only real issue here is that some people want to try out a particular fantasy, but the options available don't fit the mechanical style they like to play. While other people are living their fantasy already, with the mechanical style that they enjoy. We shouldn't be looking for ways to make one mechanic apply to every class. That's been tried before and wasn't incredibly popular. We should be looking for ways to give mechanical options to every fantasy. So if you want to play a heroic warrior, you can make them as simple as you want, or choose a different class/subclass/path and complicate them as much as you want. If you want to cast amazing magic spells, you should be able to do the same.
Some people want to try out the fantasy of the fighter, but mechanically the current options don't suit them. Some people want to try out the fantasy of a wizard, but they run into the same problems. The same applies to clerics, and rogues, and everything else. We can't change class mechanics for some people without ruining it for others. Unless we are very careful in providing paths for everyone. The best option is probably more classes. Baring that, we have to be understanding that everyone has different needs and try to find solutions that work for everyone.
I really, really, enjoy when you go on a tear. Your writing is very entertaining, and you usually make good points. But it gets really difficult to have a productive conversation when you insert words into people's mouths, or keyboards as it were.
First, I can't answer for the opinions of anyone else on the thread, but speaking for myself, I haven't suggested removing anything from any class. I haven't suggested making everything simple. I've never said to stop playing. (On the other hand, you have the complex fighter crowd who's said, learn the rules better or you don't get to play.) I've never said to take anything away at all from anyone. What I and some others have argued in favor of is not adding in more complexity to the base fighter class. We've said keep simple as an option. Some people want simple. That's all, an option. Some new players want simple. Some veteran players want simple. Some people prefer simple.
I have a person I play with sometimes who's an anesthesiologist. If she makes a small math error at work, people literally die. She is more than capable of understanding and manipulating the most complex systems D&D or any other RPG can throw at her. But when she's playing, she wants a break from that. She wants to hang out with the people at the table, and play a game not feel like she needs to do homework between sessions to figure out a bunch of subsystems. If there are no simple options, she and people like her would just bounce off the game. So, you're basically just saying to her, sorry, git gud or you don't get to play? Sounds pretty gatekeepy to me.
And if you don't think fighters already have complexity in play, well, I guess you're kind of telling me you've never played a fighter. But if you want more complex in your white room fighters, there's battle master, as many have brought up. There's echo night, which has lot of complexity. There's Eldritch knight, which gets spell choices. There's rune knight which has meaningful choices, some of which are even level gated, which some people have advocated for. There's things like arcane archer, which give you choices (another example of a subclass that people love to crap on until they play one). Then a step down there's cavaliers and psi knights which, granted, don't get choices at level up, but do get choices in combat. if you want something just a little bit more complex than a champion, there's samurai. (And, PDKs, well, exist, I suppose.) Beyond the subclasses, fighters, as we all know, get those extra feats. And they are typically SAD, so they can spend those feats on things besides asi. You want more options, take fey touched, take telekenetic, take any number of other feats, which can layer on even more complexity than the subclass does. If you don't want complexity, just keep taking the asi, and get some passive bonuses and keep it simple. The current version gives you choices. There's a pretty wide range of complexity in fighters, and that's anchored by the champion at the simple end. Why do you insist that the option be removed from people that want it?
Also, I'm not trying to say fighters are perfect. But, personally, I think what they lack is out of combat options (I realize I'm far from the first person to make this observation). Someone earlier mentioned that rogues are pretty similar to fighters in a combat, as far as limited options. But the reason people don't think rogues are boring is that after the fight is over, rogues will be the one picking the lock on the chest or scouting out the next room. What fighters really lack is something to do in the other two pillars of the game. Though they have started to try and address that by adding in some skill proficiencies to some subclasses, but still, usually, there's going to be someone else who does it better. But I think if you can give them a more defined out of combat role, that could also go a long way toward making them more fun for people who want more complexity.
On a slightly different note, I do think we need to better define terms. Are we talking about giving more options in play, or at level up? Because those are very different conversations. And really, not having options at level up is a more systemic issue, with the exception of warlocks, and spell selections, really no one gets many choices there.
Sigh.
Fine.
"Simple Fighter" it is, with absolutely no option for anyone looking for more advanced, nuanced, or engaging play. Y'all can slam the door to the entire Warrior class group closed in the faces of anyone who wants more from their character than "CHAMPION SMASH YAAY!"
When players drift away from your tables, though? When you ask why and they say "I dunno man, it's just boring... "? When the hobby starts to recede again because it can't retain players past their first campaign? Y'all DO NOT get to complain, and y'all can also do us all the favor of squarely accepting the blame for that recession.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yurei, it looks like you keep having fights with people that don't exist. In this whole thread, no one has ever said that you should play another game instead. No one has ridiculed you or shut any doors in your face. No one has mocked the basic premise of your request for options.
We have tried to show how warrior classes currently have a lot of customization choices available. A wide variety of subclasses, feats, and choices that are better than even some other classes in many ways. How even the 'simple fighter' isn't as bland as it might look on the surface.
We have tried to suggest other ways to improve on that too. Options that we could add, while also not ostracizing the people who like what they already have.
We have asked what compromises you might be open to, and what ideas you might have that could so the same
We have tried to show how everyone finds enjoyment in different things. And how the things you consider to be 'deep and engaging choices' do not feel the same to other players. How others might view them as numerical constraints on their creativity, and stifling to their fun.
We have tried to show how different experiences can affect our views.
And we've done all this in the face of some rather hostile and ugly insults and characterizations. I keep trying to help create a space of understanding. I keep telling myself that you're just very passionate about this and I shouldn't take the insults personally, even when you mock people close to me that I have opened up about.
But we aren't getting anywhere. There has to be some understanding of other points of view. There has to be respect given to the people that have different needs. There has to be a willingness to compromise. Until we can all at least recognize a common ground to start on, this argument is just going to go in the same circles forever.
You say you want simple options for all archetypes, but then you advocate to turn the one simple martial into something only advanced players can easily play. Yes, there should be a simpler spellcasting class, but removing the simple martial option doesn't help with that whatsoever. Why does Fighter have to be the complex martial? You can literally make any other martial complex, yet you choose to complicate the one class that is beloved for being simple.
Everybody should be able to play the game. Taking away Fighter, which is a wonderful and excellent option that allows new players to more easily play the game, just serves to make it harder for that aforementioned goal to be fulfilled.
Yes, "there should be a complex martial option." But there should also be a simple martial option, and taking away that simple martial option to turn it into the complex martial you seek makes no sense, especially when you can make any other martial the complex one instead.
If I'm misunderstanding you, then I genuinely am sorry. But you said you are looking to give Fighter "the same level of complexity as a Wizard" in your original post on this thread, regardless of the fact that that statement directly contradicts what you said in the post quoted above.
Firstly, no one here is advocating "to rip everything resembling depth, engagement, and decision making from" the game, we are merely arguing for people to let us keep our literal one simple martial class in the game. Secondly, no one has told you to quit playing D&D. In fact, our whole literal goal is to ensure that every type of player, both new and advanced, is able to have options they can play and enjoy in the game.
Anyways, the answer to your question is that we put the additional complexity in subclasses, backgrounds, and feats. Personally, I think that Fighter subclasses need to be expanded; it's hard to make 5 features drastically change the way you play a class, but 6+ features can. As for backgrounds: 1DD has already got you covered: they made backgrounds customizable and flavorful, while allowing for simpler alternatives for those who want them. And feats already do a great job at this, though they could do even better. Feats allow you to get cool and unique features for your character, and there are just so many feats that it's basically impossible to run out of options.
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.It seems odd to me that on different topics, people will say that WotC has to be open to all styles of play and that players should feel that they can play the type of character they want to play. But on this topic, some of the same people are like "NO!!! I don't care what style of play you find fun, only my kind matters." Like the topic of floating racial ASI's from Tasha's where some wanted fixed ASI's and others wanted the floating ASI because players should be able to play how they want without feeling restricted. But for some, it is flipflopped and the free-floating ASI crowd and player choice advocates are digging in their heels for no simple fighter, only complex fighters count because no one else's fun matters. Or vice versa.
Of the 12 classes in the PHB which ones are simple to play, and which are complex?
I'm serious. Which do you consider complex, and which are simple? Is the Fighter the only simple class? Is wizard the only complex class? Are they 50/50 simple/complex?
I really hadn't given it much thought. I don't see any of them as overly simple or overly complex. Simple or complex, they all can be played poorly.
And I really would like to see a Fighter with more options. At its core they should be the pinnacle of fighting prowess. But at the same time, I can see how having a spectrum of complexity among classes as an overall benefit for all styles of play.
I know this would never happen, but maybe it would be best if they added a 13th class and called it Battle Master, make it its own standalone class with their own subclasses so you basically have a "fighter" that is more complex and the standard Fighter leave as they are, maybe with some better scaling. I don't know what the Warlord was like, but would something like that be a good addition?
In the end, though, since this is the UA forum, all of these arguments could be a complete waste of time as we have no idea what the Warrior UA will bring. Maybe Fighters will be more complex and have unique abilities tied to how they use weapons, different effects when using B, P, S weapons, or Heavy, Versatile, Two-Handed, etc. Or maybe they will remain relatively untouched, but when the Mage group comes out, we find out that spells and spellcasters get the hammer taken to them and simplified and power throttled down. Who knows.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Hang on. You're saying the Fighter is the only simple martial? What do you call the Barbarian? The Rogue? Is deciding when to Rage or understanding how to gain Sneak Attack really that complex? Which one would you like to see as the complex martial?
Um... barbarians exist.
Fighter is the one simple martial with a versatile class design that was made to be available to new players. Rogue may not be complicated, but it's certainly not simple. And Barbarian is a massively limiting class concept, among other things. Anyways, as I stated several times in the post you literally just quoted, feel free to make any non-Fighter martial the complicated class.
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.Absolutely. All of this could be moot when the next UA comes out.
I hadn't put much conscious thought into this either before these conversations. I know I instinctually understood it. And I definitely saw its effects on my players. But I didn't think of classifying the class options by complexity, or looking for solutions with sweeping changes. I just found ways to adapt.
I think all class Groups, now that we are using them, need a range of options. From the mechanically simple to the mechanically complex. So that everyone can fulfill their fantasy in the way they are comfortable. It is also important to note that complex mechanics does not automatically mean a more complex or interesting experience. And that very complex characters can be played with very simple mechanics. The level of complexity only fulfills one aspect of enjoyment, and is different for different people.
For Warriors, I would say that Fighters have the most potential for mechanical simplicity. Barbarians are close, but are limited by theme. Monks are incredibly complex. They probably meet almost all of the needs of players who want more decisions. They have movement options, battlefield control options, many combat maneuvers, resources to track, scaling power, new abilities almost every level, even exploration and social skills. They should be the perfect go-to choice for the people who want a complex martial. So why aren't they? I suspect it's because of their theme. You could easily re-skin a monk to be any kind of fighter you could imagine. But the default theme is difficult for people to overlook, just as it is with the barbarian. This is why you and I both suggested a 'Warlord' option for an advanced fighter, without the thematic constraints.
For Mages, Wizards have the most options and take the most work. But in some respects they are easier than Sorcerers and Warlocks. They don't have to deal with metamagic or invocations. Warlocks only have a few spell slots, but they have to work hard during the character creation phase (including leveling up). Their decisions are front loaded. The same with Sorcerers. Wizards make their decisions on the fly. That's probably why people think they are more complex, even though they have fewer things to track. Simplicity actually gives them flexibility. No Mages are completely easy. Even their simplest classes are still middle of the road for complexity.
Priests are a mixed bag. Both Clerics and Druids require learning every spell at every level, since they are all open to choose each day. They also have special abilities to keep up with. On top of that, it is not immediately clear how they should be played. People wonder if they are meant for melee, healing, buffing, or battlefield control, because they can do all of these. Paladin is probably the easiest. Or at least it can be if you choose so. But it's still more complicated than a barbarian or fighter
Experts have Rogues on the easier end and Bards on the complex end. Rangers are close behind Bards. Artificers are kind of like Warlocks. A lot of decisions up front when you level up, to avoid making too many during play.