Am I the only one who enjoyed the relative lack of complexity of 5e? I am not enjoying what I see with the latest play test material or most of it, in general. They seem to be adding a lot of complexity to the game (weapon mastery) etc that I just do not enjoy.
Also, wizards and sorcerers, you get one 9th level spell slot? Lame. I do miss the old rules for high ability scores giving extra spell slots.
5e has never given anyone more than one 9th-level spell slot, and weapon mastery doesn't really add much complexity at all. What would add complexity is high ability scores giving extra spell slots, something that 5e has never done.
5e has never given anyone more than one 9th-level spell slot, and weapon mastery doesn't really add much complexity at all. What would add complexity is high ability scores giving extra spell slots, something that 5e has never done.
I disagree. The weapon mastery items would be complex to manage. It creates complexity with weapons and adds a lot of special rules to the game. It is akin to the feat mess from 3.5.
I would rather see some extra spell slots than all of the complexity around sorcery points etc. I ended up quitting 3.5/PF1e because of the sheer rules complexity and I see a lot of the same red flags here.
I actually think that 5e could do with being a bit more complex. Weapon mastery is a good way.of doing ite - it provides a little extra complexity, but it's also easy to excise if you don't want it. Just play without them.
As for 1D&D on the whole - my concern has been the opposite. For example, in the most recent playtest, Warlocks have lost their unique spell casting method. If anything, I think D&D is becoming less complex. While I have no issue with it becoming easier to play - that's a good thing - it's also becoming more generic and uniform.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah, I don't think weapon masteries are that complex. You also don't have to use them if you don't want. It's just a means of making fighters a little more interesting.
Am I the only one who enjoyed the relative lack of complexity of 5e? I am not enjoying what I see with the latest play test material or most of it, in general. They seem to be adding a lot of complexity to the game (weapon mastery) etc that I just do not enjoy.
Also, wizards and sorcerers, you get one 9th level spell slot? Lame. I do miss the old rules for high ability scores giving extra spell slots.
Wait, so you played 3e at high levels but you think 5e is starting to get too complex? What? 🤨
I don't think the weapon masteries are overly complex but it does seem to conflict with other simplifying ideas. other areas are debatable more complex as well. I think some of the stat blocks with multi choices are worse than just picking one. (familiars and other summons).
5e has never given anyone more than one 9th-level spell slot, and weapon mastery doesn't really add much complexity at all. What would add complexity is high ability scores giving extra spell slots, something that 5e has never done.
I disagree. The weapon mastery items would be complex to manage. It creates complexity with weapons and adds a lot of special rules to the game. It is akin to the feat mess from 3.5.
I would rather see some extra spell slots than all of the complexity around sorcery points etc. I ended up quitting 3.5/PF1e because of the sheer rules complexity and I see a lot of the same red flags here.
It is nothing like the 3.5 feats. Most of the time, you’ll have one weapon, and it will have one mastery property. It’s a trivial amount of complexity to add. It gives you one little trick you can add. Then, you can add a different one. Then eventually a second one. It’s barely more complex.
Weapon Mastery is not complex, and it gives martial classes much needed tactical capabilities in order to compete with casting classes. If anything, it could stand to be a little more complex than X weapon does Y bonus thing when you attack
I would be fine with "simple" martial classes if they were good. In all of 5e and what is shown in the current playtest, Barbarians and Fighters are not good. There is basically no reason to play these classes (or Rogue or Monk) instead of a Paladin or Ranger if you're looking to make a character that is actually strong.
Why? Because Paladin and Ranger is typically on par with or ahead of these classes lvl 1-10 and by the time martials get any advantage as martial characters, they're competing with 3rd+ lvl spells from the half-casters. This will get even worse with OneD&D, because now Pala and Ranger are going to get access to the full Cleric and Druid spell lists respectively, and Ranger is becoming a prepared caster. 1 additional attack per turn and maybe an extra weapon property just is not good enough to compete with spellcasting.
I don't even think Pala and Ranger are overpowered. I just wish characters without spellcasting would get the buffs they sorely need to stay relevant.
Fighters get a lot of flak in earlier editions for being boring (and they kinda are unless you multi- or dual class them), but at least I never felt my 2e Fighter with Weapon (Grand)Mastery (tabletop or Baldur's Gate version) was weak. Compared to 5e, 2e Fighters had better accuracy and better dmg and dealt with smaller enemy health numbers.
My main concern in in-session complexity. I have players who struggle to make decisions and learn their class now. If you add a lot of choices into the mix during combat, then it will just dramatically add to the combat encounter time and not in a good way. I have seen some players take 10 minutes trying to make a choice.
My main concern in in-session complexity. I have players who struggle to make decisions and learn their class now. If you add a lot of choices into the mix during combat, then it will just dramatically add to the combat encounter time and not in a good way. I have seen some players take 10 minutes trying to make a choice.
Then, when it comes to it, tell them not to worry about the weapon property. They pick a weapon they think is cool. Turns out that weapon lets them do whatever its mastery lets them do. They were going to attack, anyway, now their attack has an added effect. It will be the same effect every time. It's not a lot to learn.
Taking 10 minutes for a turn can often be a separate issue from not understanding the game. It is perfectly reasonable to put them on a 1-minute egg timer. I've heard of lots of groups that do it when they have players getting stuck in analysis paralysis.
I actually think that 5e could do with being a bit more complex. Weapon mastery is a good way.of doing ite - it provides a little extra complexity, but it's also easy to excise if you don't want it. Just play without them.
As for 1D&D on the whole - my concern has been the opposite. For example, in the most recent playtest, Warlocks have lost their unique spell casting method. If anything, I think D&D is becoming less complex. While I have no issue with it becoming easier to play - that's a good thing - it's also becoming more generic and uniform.
100%, I see a watered down...MMO expansion, everyone can do everything system starting...SUPER apparent with familiars, wildshape, and the stat block garbage. Warlock familiars have no flavor in this version, why not just pick Pact of the Blade, and a Wizard dip or feat to grab Find Familiar...actually, based upon this Warlock...why even be a Warlock now...based on the cool stuff the Wizard is getting...Locks look like garbage. I do, somewhat, understand trying to decouple the Lock away from short rests, not all tables use that feature, but in reality all the Warlock needed was a few more spell slots, tweaks to make all Invocations worth using, as we know there was only a couple that got used. Then tweaking Boon Invocations for better use, and add an extra Invocation slot overall. Really all the Lock needed was a reason not just to make it a MC dip. Now from what I can see in the new design, it is specifically going to be used for multiclassing.
My main concern in in-session complexity. I have players who struggle to make decisions and learn their class now. If you add a lot of choices into the mix during combat, then it will just dramatically add to the combat encounter time and not in a good way. I have seen some players take 10 minutes trying to make a choice.
I think you may have misinterpreted weapon mastery; the choice is almost exclusively an out of combat one, because in combat the only choice they have is which weapon to use. This 'Weapon Juggling' play style is entirely optional, and in 90%* of groups it will not matter if they choose to juggle or not; it simply opens up the option to people who want to do this sort of thing.
Furthermore, Barbarians will never have to make any weapon-mastery-related extra choices in combat unless they decide they want to juggle weapons, and until level 13, Fighters will be in the same boat; until then they only have one mastery feature per weapon, and even once past 13 the choice is only between 'Do I want to do A or B?' with A or B being simple rider effects with fairly obvious applications, which I believe even the most decision-challenged players should be able to spot.
The strength of weapon mastery is that it gives out-of-combat choice to make in-combat situations more customisable and engaging, potentially satisfying both the simplicity group and the tactical depth group.
*disclosure: this statistic is defined as an 'hyperbolic argumentation term' and should not be taken literally
There's literally nothing else for a fighter to think about. They walk up to enemies and hit them. Have you played a fighter? Did you honestly think it was complex?
I'm not hating on fighters here and obviously there's tactics, positioning, etc. to think about. But other classes need to consider those too and they have spells and other features to deal with on top of it.
No, weapon mastery does not make fighters too complex.
I actually think that 5e could do with being a bit more complex. Weapon mastery is a good way.of doing ite - it provides a little extra complexity, but it's also easy to excise if you don't want it. Just play without them.
As for 1D&D on the whole - my concern has been the opposite. For example, in the most recent playtest, Warlocks have lost their unique spell casting method. If anything, I think D&D is becoming less complex. While I have no issue with it becoming easier to play - that's a good thing - it's also becoming more generic and uniform.
100%, I see a watered down...MMO expansion, everyone can do everything system starting...SUPER apparent with familiars, wildshape, and the stat block garbage. Warlock familiars have no flavor in this version, why not just pick Pact of the Blade, and a Wizard dip or feat to grab Find Familiar...actually, based upon this Warlock...why even be a Warlock now...based on the cool stuff the Wizard is getting...Locks look like garbage. I do, somewhat, understand trying to decouple the Lock away from short rests, not all tables use that feature, but in reality all the Warlock needed was a few more spell slots, tweaks to make all Invocations worth using, as we know there was only a couple that got used. Then tweaking Boon Invocations for better use, and add an extra Invocation slot overall. Really all the Lock needed was a reason not just to make it a MC dip. Now from what I can see in the new design, it is specifically going to be used for multiclassing.
Weapon Mastery is not complex, and it gives martial classes much needed tactical capabilities in order to compete with casting classes. If anything, it could stand to be a little more complex than X weapon does Y bonus thing when you attack
That being said, my biggest complaint with this play test packet is that it didn't do enough to make martials more powerful. Looking at fighter, they could probably move weapon expert down to a lower level, move weapon adept to 7th level, and then buff weapon adept so that the two proprieties could work on the same attack. At level 13, they could have a new ability that improved each of the weapon masteries; your damage values increase, saving throws get higher, Sap and Vex get additional flat bonus, etc. Maybe they could also get an ability that lets them ignore the prerequisites of masteries on specific weapons eventually, or have 4+ masteries on the same weapon. I would rather them give fighter so many buffs to weapon usage and ways to use the mastery system they fighter becomes the uncontested best class in the game so much so that fighter gets nerfed than for them to undershoot its power with the playtest.
I want to see a version of fighter that can Topple, Cleave, Sap, Vex, and Grapple a target, and then do that again in the same turn without any "limited use" abilities. I want a fighter that can cause shortwaves with a Greataxe or throw a dozen knives in a round. Unarmed fighters should be grappling enemies and tossing them around the battlefield. A high level fighter should be an unstoppable force of consistent damage and control. There is a lot they could do. Make it fun. And make it powerful.
P.S. the names are backwards. It should go Adept -> Expert -> Mastery
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I write homebrew and don't publish it. (evil, I know)
Try Laserllama’s homebrew alternate classes. They’re balanced and well designed, and in many cases better than official stuff. The classes add complexity without making play too complex, and the martials really feel as powerful as spellcasters.
Try Laserllama’s homebrew alternate classes. They’re balanced and well designed, and in many cases better than official stuff. The classes add complexity without making play too complex, and the martials really feel as powerful as spellcasters.
Am I the only one who enjoyed the relative lack of complexity of 5e? I am not enjoying what I see with the latest play test material or most of it, in general. They seem to be adding a lot of complexity to the game (weapon mastery) etc that I just do not enjoy.
Also, wizards and sorcerers, you get one 9th level spell slot? Lame. I do miss the old rules for high ability scores giving extra spell slots.
5e has never given anyone more than one 9th-level spell slot, and weapon mastery doesn't really add much complexity at all. What would add complexity is high ability scores giving extra spell slots, something that 5e has never done.
I disagree. The weapon mastery items would be complex to manage. It creates complexity with weapons and adds a lot of special rules to the game. It is akin to the feat mess from 3.5.
I would rather see some extra spell slots than all of the complexity around sorcery points etc. I ended up quitting 3.5/PF1e because of the sheer rules complexity and I see a lot of the same red flags here.
I actually think that 5e could do with being a bit more complex. Weapon mastery is a good way.of doing ite - it provides a little extra complexity, but it's also easy to excise if you don't want it. Just play without them.
As for 1D&D on the whole - my concern has been the opposite. For example, in the most recent playtest, Warlocks have lost their unique spell casting method. If anything, I think D&D is becoming less complex. While I have no issue with it becoming easier to play - that's a good thing - it's also becoming more generic and uniform.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yeah, I don't think weapon masteries are that complex. You also don't have to use them if you don't want. It's just a means of making fighters a little more interesting.
Wait, so you played 3e at high levels but you think 5e is starting to get too complex? What? 🤨
I don't think the weapon masteries are overly complex but it does seem to conflict with other simplifying ideas. other areas are debatable more complex as well. I think some of the stat blocks with multi choices are worse than just picking one. (familiars and other summons).
It is nothing like the 3.5 feats.
Most of the time, you’ll have one weapon, and it will have one mastery property. It’s a trivial amount of complexity to add. It gives you one little trick you can add. Then, you can add a different one. Then eventually a second one. It’s barely more complex.
Weapon Mastery is not complex, and it gives martial classes much needed tactical capabilities in order to compete with casting classes. If anything, it could stand to be a little more complex than X weapon does Y bonus thing when you attack
I would be fine with "simple" martial classes if they were good. In all of 5e and what is shown in the current playtest, Barbarians and Fighters are not good. There is basically no reason to play these classes (or Rogue or Monk) instead of a Paladin or Ranger if you're looking to make a character that is actually strong.
Why? Because Paladin and Ranger is typically on par with or ahead of these classes lvl 1-10 and by the time martials get any advantage as martial characters, they're competing with 3rd+ lvl spells from the half-casters. This will get even worse with OneD&D, because now Pala and Ranger are going to get access to the full Cleric and Druid spell lists respectively, and Ranger is becoming a prepared caster. 1 additional attack per turn and maybe an extra weapon property just is not good enough to compete with spellcasting.
I don't even think Pala and Ranger are overpowered. I just wish characters without spellcasting would get the buffs they sorely need to stay relevant.
Fighters get a lot of flak in earlier editions for being boring (and they kinda are unless you multi- or dual class them), but at least I never felt my 2e Fighter with Weapon (Grand)Mastery (tabletop or Baldur's Gate version) was weak. Compared to 5e, 2e Fighters had better accuracy and better dmg and dealt with smaller enemy health numbers.
My main concern in in-session complexity. I have players who struggle to make decisions and learn their class now. If you add a lot of choices into the mix during combat, then it will just dramatically add to the combat encounter time and not in a good way. I have seen some players take 10 minutes trying to make a choice.
Then, when it comes to it, tell them not to worry about the weapon property. They pick a weapon they think is cool. Turns out that weapon lets them do whatever its mastery lets them do. They were going to attack, anyway, now their attack has an added effect. It will be the same effect every time. It's not a lot to learn.
Taking 10 minutes for a turn can often be a separate issue from not understanding the game. It is perfectly reasonable to put them on a 1-minute egg timer. I've heard of lots of groups that do it when they have players getting stuck in analysis paralysis.
100%, I see a watered down...MMO expansion, everyone can do everything system starting...SUPER apparent with familiars, wildshape, and the stat block garbage. Warlock familiars have no flavor in this version, why not just pick Pact of the Blade, and a Wizard dip or feat to grab Find Familiar...actually, based upon this Warlock...why even be a Warlock now...based on the cool stuff the Wizard is getting...Locks look like garbage. I do, somewhat, understand trying to decouple the Lock away from short rests, not all tables use that feature, but in reality all the Warlock needed was a few more spell slots, tweaks to make all Invocations worth using, as we know there was only a couple that got used. Then tweaking Boon Invocations for better use, and add an extra Invocation slot overall. Really all the Lock needed was a reason not just to make it a MC dip. Now from what I can see in the new design, it is specifically going to be used for multiclassing.
I think you may have misinterpreted weapon mastery; the choice is almost exclusively an out of combat one, because in combat the only choice they have is which weapon to use. This 'Weapon Juggling' play style is entirely optional, and in 90%* of groups it will not matter if they choose to juggle or not; it simply opens up the option to people who want to do this sort of thing.
Furthermore, Barbarians will never have to make any weapon-mastery-related extra choices in combat unless they decide they want to juggle weapons, and until level 13, Fighters will be in the same boat; until then they only have one mastery feature per weapon, and even once past 13 the choice is only between 'Do I want to do A or B?' with A or B being simple rider effects with fairly obvious applications, which I believe even the most decision-challenged players should be able to spot.
The strength of weapon mastery is that it gives out-of-combat choice to make in-combat situations more customisable and engaging, potentially satisfying both the simplicity group and the tactical depth group.
*disclosure: this statistic is defined as an 'hyperbolic argumentation term' and should not be taken literally
There's literally nothing else for a fighter to think about. They walk up to enemies and hit them. Have you played a fighter? Did you honestly think it was complex?
I'm not hating on fighters here and obviously there's tactics, positioning, etc. to think about. But other classes need to consider those too and they have spells and other features to deal with on top of it.
No, weapon mastery does not make fighters too complex.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
(:
That being said, my biggest complaint with this play test packet is that it didn't do enough to make martials more powerful. Looking at fighter, they could probably move weapon expert down to a lower level, move weapon adept to 7th level, and then buff weapon adept so that the two proprieties could work on the same attack. At level 13, they could have a new ability that improved each of the weapon masteries; your damage values increase, saving throws get higher, Sap and Vex get additional flat bonus, etc. Maybe they could also get an ability that lets them ignore the prerequisites of masteries on specific weapons eventually, or have 4+ masteries on the same weapon. I would rather them give fighter so many buffs to weapon usage and ways to use the mastery system they fighter becomes the uncontested best class in the game so much so that fighter gets nerfed than for them to undershoot its power with the playtest.
I want to see a version of fighter that can Topple, Cleave, Sap, Vex, and Grapple a target, and then do that again in the same turn without any "limited use" abilities. I want a fighter that can cause shortwaves with a Greataxe or throw a dozen knives in a round. Unarmed fighters should be grappling enemies and tossing them around the battlefield. A high level fighter should be an unstoppable force of consistent damage and control. There is a lot they could do. Make it fun. And make it powerful.
P.S. the names are backwards. It should go Adept -> Expert -> Mastery
I write homebrew and don't publish it. (evil, I know)
Link
That is... really cool. I'm going to ask my DM if I can use the new fighter class, as we have been looking for something like this far a while.
I write homebrew and don't publish it. (evil, I know)