The streamlining of classes, spell lists, other parts of 5e that allow choice to be specific to characters, player goals, and backstories, just reduces the fun of specific designs. I'm not talking about MIN/MAX designs, but in fact the opposite. In the proposed Druid class I'd have to use wildshape for a combat prioritized creature rather than the wide range of specific traits and abilities that 5e allows from teh range of animal statblocks.
Missing would be the really fun, interesting and specific abilities like pack tactics (Dire Wolf), Pounce (Lion and Tiger), Rampage (Giant Hyena), Web + Web Walker (Giant Spider), Standing Leap and Swallow (Giant Toad), and these are only CR 1 animals. There are also VERY FUN situational abilities like an Ape's ranged weapon rock, dig with Giant Badger, a Crocodile's hold breath, a Giant Goat's sure-footedness and Charge, or a War Horse's Trampling Charge (and the ability to carry a fellow character). Not even getting to any of the specific swim/fly animal traits and abilities.
It also requires 5th level for climb which is ridiculous when you can pick a low CR creature very early with this ability in 5e. Plus it just gives it to EVERY creature at level 5 which is also ridiculous (and probably overpowered). Ditto for Multiattack at level 5, which means Druid is then more wildshape focused for melee in combat rather than having a flexible support/skirmish ability.
That is the point. This reduces the FUN, the role play of specific beasts, the flavour of skills, abilities, proficiencies that make this class so unique and enjoyable to those who choose it.
By ostensibly making it easier, this is just reducing the FUN of playing the Druid class.
It feels like Wizards are making a game for people who don't like the specificity of options that are possible in 5e. They're forgetting that these are options, not requirements, for playing the game, and that the game has become more popular because of is flexibility.
I agree with the title. But there are things in your text with which I disagree.
- The new wildshape is very bad in melee since you are very squishy.
- Most of the Druids of the current edition, despite the fact that they have all those options that you mention, end up using only the most typical ones. I have never seen a player transformed into a lion or tiger, and rarely a Giant Hyena or Giant Toad. What I usually see is the dire wolf or bear.
- The climb thing is a mystery to me. I don't know why they made that change, and I don't see it as necessary. There we agree.
Finally I will say that they can perfectly make the class more fun without having to go back to the lists of animals. My bet is that they introduce customization options for the wild shape in a way similar to the eldritch invocations of the warlock (but animal themed, of course). The list of animals was a bad design, and I think it's good that they change it. That design had many problems. But the change has failed as the new wild shape is practically useless. I have played several sessions with the new druid, and in the end I decided to forget about the wild shape (despite being moon circle), and act as a support caster.
Complexity is neither fun or un-fun, it is all about what the complexity adds or removes. Having to search through 5 books to find out what one of the wizard's spells actually does, to find out it does not do what the Wizard thinks it does... that is complexity that is very much not fun. I still believe the templates are the right direction, however adding some options for flavouring, like gaining some traits based on form.
i.e. choose spider, dog, cheetah, bear, etc. to get spider climb, bite attack (grapples), +20 movement speed, WIS+4 strength respectively, is something I think could be implemented that is simpler than 5E but also not overly complex to the point of having to check every creatures stat block to see if they are beast, what their CR is and comparing them to other creatures from multiple sources.
Complexity is neither fun or un-fun, it is all about what the complexity adds or removes. Having to search through 5 books to find out what one of the wizard's spells actually does, to find out it does not do what the Wizard thinks it does... that is complexity that is very much not fun. I still believe the templates are the right direction, however adding some options for flavouring, like gaining some traits based on form.
i.e. choose spider, dog, cheetah, bear, etc. to get spider climb, bite attack (grapples), +20 movement speed, WIS+4 strength respectively, is something I think could be implemented that is simpler than 5E but also not overly complex to the point of having to check every creatures stat block to see if they are beast, what their CR is and comparing them to other creatures from multiple sources.
Plus, keeping the template, and adding in these options gives more freedom to the player to play a consistent form. If you want to be wolf themed druid you can keep that shape and pick up the appropriate abilities you want to use. But if you want to be wolf themed now, as you get higher level with access to higher CR's, you need to select a completely different animal and say you're a wolf. Sure, flavor is free, but some might have a DM that says "sorry if you want to use the bear stats you need to be a bear". The template encourages you to flavor your form however you like, while it grows with your character (hopefully, if they make some needed changes to the UA templates).
I'm all for the template. It just needs a lot of work and I doubt this version will go to print. Otherwise, what's the point of the playtest and feedback.
Oh, and to the OP. Less complexity is less fun may be how you see it, but there are as many ways to have fun as there are players. You are entitled to your opinion, but it isn't universal. Otherwise, everyone would be playing Pathfinder (more complexity so it should be more fun, right!)
I agree that more complexity can be more fun it it adds interesting mechanics or choices to the game. That being said, for a lot of people, it's easier and more enjoyable to play something that's simpler, easier to understand, and doesn't require a lot of work.
Yes, this version of Wild Shape isn't very interesting and is weak. That being said, I genuinely don't know what you mean when you say that 1DD is "streamlining classes". Each class so far has been unique and different, and the reason this Druid isn't very interesting isn't because it's less complex (it actually doesn't really feel that much simpler to me at least). The reason is because the developers removed abilities in this playtest without adding anything cool or powerful back in.
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.
That being said, I genuinely don't know what you mean when you say that 1DD is "streamlining classes".
One word: spellcasting. The current direction they're taking it in is painfully homogenous and is going to remove the core mechanical identity of Wizards.
I’m kind of concerned with what The_Ace_of_Rogues said. I don’t think we’ve seen many of the updated spell casters yet but looking at the new bard it seems to suggest all spell casters will function more like the cleric and druid going forward. They’ll have access to the full list of spells and prepare the ones they think they’ll need for the day. Which is good and simple and on the surface I don’t mind this idea. It works well for the druid, ranger, paladin and cleric. However if it is applied to the wizard and sorcerer they really aren’t going to be different enough. It would seem to mean a wizard doesn’t really need a spell book anymore so flavor-wise they’d be just like sorcerers. Sorcerers are already kind of pointless. With this change they might as well blend the two classes together and use subclasses to distinction between earned power and inherited power.
Now I’ve never liked playing wizards because you have to depend on the DM adding spell books and scrolls for copying to treasure when a lot of published adventures don’t feature them. And as a DM I’m not that fond of trying to remember to add spell books and scrolls to the treasure for the wizard to copy. There is enough to keep track of already. However it is a key part of the concept of one of the most popular and fundamental classes in the game. If they do go the way of the cleric I really hope the come up with a way to keep that researcher element alive. Don’t really care what they do with the sorcerer.
As for the wild shape, that’s a wait and see. In the current edition I like the summoning spells introduced in Tasha’s and I like the updated Beastmaster Ranger and Drakewarden Ranger, well kind of like those rangers, all rangers should have animal companions, so making that system uniform across the classes should work. Might still need a little work though. The Druid getting a familiar brings that class back in theme to the way they once were to some extend, getting their animal friend back. And that animal friend can be used for spying so they haven’t completely lost that utility. I’m also happy that one flying familiar has lost its fly-by move. I was getting tired of every wizard having an owl. Although I’m so far disappointed with the Paladin’s new stead. If it can no longer function independently in battle it’s just a horse and by mid level everyone can afford a horse.
I agree with the title. But there are things in your text with which I disagree.
- The new wildshape is very bad in melee since you are very squishy.
I'm not saying it's good, but that it's geared to only be melee rather than the variety of other possibilities currently available.
- Most of the Druids of the current edition, despite the fact that they have all those options that you mention, end up using only the most typical ones. I have never seen a player transformed into a lion or tiger, and rarely a Giant Hyena or Giant Toad. What I usually see is the dire wolf or bear.
Druids at my table are regularly everything from Giant centipedes to Giant Octopi! I like to get creative with Wild Shape because Druids are supposed to know and revere nature, and should understand that nature has tools for just about anything. It's not that most players would use these tools, it's that currently they can.
- The climb thing is a mystery to me. I don't know why they made that change, and I don't see it as necessary. There we agree.
Finally I will say that they can perfectly make the class more fun without having to go back to the lists of animals. My bet is that they introduce customization options for the wild shape in a way similar to the eldritch invocations of the warlock (but animal themed, of course). The list of animals was a bad design, and I think it's good that they change it. That design had many problems. But the change has failed as the new wild shape is practically useless. I have played several sessions with the new druid, and in the end I decided to forget about the wild shape (despite being moon circle), and act as a support caster.
Your conclusions depress me even more. I don't see the animals lists as a "bad design." I'm not looking to max power for combat though, and like the options for all of the other parts of the game, including role play, with the animals.
I agree that more complexity can be more fun it it adds interesting mechanics or choices to the game. That being said, for a lot of people, it's easier and more enjoyable to play something that's simpler, easier to understand, and doesn't require a lot of work.
Yes, this version of Wild Shape isn't very interesting and is weak. That being said, I genuinely don't know what you mean when you say that 1DD is "streamlining classes". Each class so far has been unique and different, and the reason this Druid isn't very interesting isn't because it's less complex (it actually doesn't really feel that much simpler to me at least). The reason is because the developers removed abilities in this playtest without adding anything cool or powerful back in.
So many posts relating to playtest material are about, balance, power, combat.
My comment above is not about power, or combat. It's about creativity. I like complexity for adaptibility, for fun role play and exploration as much as killing stuff. We do agree it removed cool but also that the cool of the Druid was the goal for many who play Druids, not the min/max of a combat powerhouse.
To an extent, my appreciation of complexity depends on my mood. Sometimes, I just wanna quickly make up some simple characters in an easy-to-grasp system and run a good, old-fashioned "beer and pretzels" dungeon crawl with my old high school buddies on a rainy Sunday afternoon; other times I want a hyper-detailed and painstakingly accurate medieval combat simulation and nothing else will do.
I admit that it also depends on which aspect(s) of the game are gaining/losing complexity.
For example, I always, always, always want more when it comes to weapons and armour in a game. Games that dumb down the choices to something like "There are only three categories of armour: light, medium, and heavy. Anything beyond that is just flavor text" cause me to lose interest immediately. I want to see plausible, culturally coherent representations of my favorite armour types from history, and I want them to have game statistics that reward using them, and I want weapons that do more than just inflict damage--I enjoy having a mechanical reason to select, say, a warhammer to attack a guy in armour vs. a sword.
On the other hand, I feel that magic is entirely *too* complex. There's no reason to have eighty pages of spells with layers upon layers of rules for their subtle nuances while the martial classes get a measly four pages of bland choices in arms and armour. Like, do we *really* need Warlocks and Sorcerers? Are they really that distinct? It seems to me that all the spellcasting classes could be lumped into one catch-all category called "Magic-User" just as easily as all the various metal armour types can be categorized as "Heavy Armour."
So, yeah: I guess I'd like to see complexity increase with regard to weapons and armour, but decrease sharply with regard to spells and magic.
... So, yeah: I guess I'd like to see complexity increase with regard to weapons and armour, but decrease sharply with regard to spells and magic.
D&D's magic system is one of its greatest strengths. Many other games do exactly what you suggest and get rid of almost all the rules for magic, stripping away high-level spellcasting and restricting characters made in those systems to the rough equivalent of maybe second-level spells at best, and usually not very many of them, with the instruction "use these basic ideas to create your own cool spells with different flavors and trappings!" With no cantrips or other default/resource-free magic, to boot.
Result: magic is fundamentally useless in these systems, a shitty afterthought that's no fun to play since you can't DO anything. You can't affect the world with your spells and solve problems, you're strictly worse than all other characters at fighting your enemies. You're more-or-less a boat anchor that provides no value to your team and are strictly detrimental to the party. D&D is one of the only TTRPGs where magic is magical and allows you to do Awesome Wizard Shit.
More depth and engagement in martial combat would certainly be appreciated, but I don't think the level of Medieval Combat HEMA Simulator you're shooting for, where someone in plate armor is effectively invulnerable to all forms of attack unless you just so happen to have seven feats allowing you to hyperspecialize in the use of anti-armor weapons - at which point you're entirely worthless against unarmored foes since warhammers, picks, and the like are overwhelmingly outclassed by cutting weapons against light targets - is the way to go.
- Most of the Druids of the current edition, despite the fact that they have all those options that you mention, end up using only the most typical ones. I have never seen a player transformed into a lion or tiger, and rarely a Giant Hyena or Giant Toad. What I usually see is the dire wolf or bear.
That's sad... I've been playing a moon druid for 2 years from level 3-12. Here are some of the things I've used WS for in that time: - Jaguar/Squirrel to climb trees and leap from treetop to treetop for scouting. - Giant Badger to dig a tunnel to escape a room that was filling up with acid - Bear for combat - Giant Spider to ambush enemies from the ceiling - Giant Spider to guide the party through a tunnel filled with magical darkness - Pleisosaur to act as a boat for the party to ride on when a room was filling with water. - Giant constrictor Snake to keep a dragon on the ground while the paladin smited it. - Giant Owl to pull a dying ally out of trouble - Giant Eagle to carry the party across a river - Allosaurus/Giant Elk to carry the party while we chased down a fleeing enemy. - Giant Spider to Web someone we wanted to interrogate. - Mouse so I could ride in someone's pocket as they flew over lava - Giant Spider to carry an ally up a steep cliff - Giant Goat to carry an ally across a narrow path - Giant Bat for a night-time aerial ambush
... So, yeah: I guess I'd like to see complexity increase with regard to weapons and armour, but decrease sharply with regard to spells and magic.
D&D's magic system is one of its greatest strengths. Many other games do exactly what you suggest and get rid of almost all the rules for magic, stripping away high-level spellcasting and restricting characters made in those systems to the rough equivalent of maybe second-level spells at best, and usually not very many of them, with the instruction "use these basic ideas to create your own cool spells with different flavors and trappings!" With no cantrips or other default/resource-free magic, to boot.
Result: magic is fundamentally useless in these systems, a shitty afterthought that's no fun to play since you can't DO anything. You can't affect the world with your spells and solve problems, you're strictly worse than all other characters at fighting your enemies. You're more-or-less a boat anchor that provides no value to your team and are strictly detrimental to the party. D&D is one of the only TTRPGs where magic is magical and allows you to do Awesome Wizard Shit.
More depth and engagement in martial combat would certainly be appreciated, but I don't think the level of Medieval Combat HEMA Simulator you're shooting for, where someone in plate armor is effectively invulnerable to all forms of attack unless you just so happen to have seven feats allowing you to hyperspecialize in the use of anti-armor weapons - at which point you're entirely worthless against unarmored foes since warhammers, picks, and the like are overwhelmingly outclassed by cutting weapons against light targets - is the way to go.
On the topic of D&D's spell system, I would like to say that I find it both enjoyable and interesting, though it certainly is quite complex. Hopefully, we can have a far simpler spellcaster make into the next edition of the game, at least in a supplement, so that people who like the current system can keep using it, and players that are new to the game or just prefer simplicity can have something that is less complicated to use if they want.
For all the talk about how terrible every spellcasting mechanic that isn't the current one will automatically be, I think it's possible to add a psion class or something that uses Warlock invocations for spells, so that it's available as a less complex option. If I am going to be honest, we already have so many complex casters that it would be nice for one of them to be simplified, though a better way of providing an option like this would be to utilize optional complexity or to just add a new class, since both of these methods seem like manageable alternatives.
As for Warriors and other martials, I think it makes sense to boost their level of complexity and versatility, as long as some of the simple options that are being loved, played, and enjoyed already are allowed to stay.
I disagree very much. One of the main complaints I hear about D&D is that combat is super slow, despite 5e streamlining things. I blame complex class/race features.
Also, I should clarify, I don't consider those Feature to be Rules; they alter/ignore/bend/break already established rules. The misconception that the game's rules are in those features is exactly what's dragging things down. The rule states that you can attack on your action. The feature states you can attack twice on your action.
Dear WotC, I don't want anymore complex features. There shouldn't be such a huge breadth of them, and their descriptions shouldn't be more than three sentences.
To the original poster, not kidding, I think you should try 4e. You pretty much summarized its design.
... So, yeah: I guess I'd like to see complexity increase with regard to weapons and armour, but decrease sharply with regard to spells and magic.
D&D's magic system is one of its greatest strengths. Many other games do exactly what you suggest and get rid of almost all the rules for magic, stripping away high-level spellcasting and restricting characters made in those systems to the rough equivalent of maybe second-level spells at best, and usually not very many of them, with the instruction "use these basic ideas to create your own cool spells with different flavors and trappings!" With no cantrips or other default/resource-free magic, to boot.
Result: magic is fundamentally useless in these systems, a shitty afterthought that's no fun to play since you can't DO anything. You can't affect the world with your spells and solve problems, you're strictly worse than all other characters at fighting your enemies. You're more-or-less a boat anchor that provides no value to your team and are strictly detrimental to the party. D&D is one of the only TTRPGs where magic is magical and allows you to do Awesome Wizard Shit.
More depth and engagement in martial combat would certainly be appreciated, but I don't think the level of Medieval Combat HEMA Simulator you're shooting for, where someone in plate armor is effectively invulnerable to all forms of attack unless you just so happen to have seven feats allowing you to hyperspecialize in the use of anti-armor weapons - at which point you're entirely worthless against unarmored foes since warhammers, picks, and the like are overwhelmingly outclassed by cutting weapons against light targets - is the way to go.
On the topic of D&D's spell system, I would like to say that I find it both enjoyable and interesting, though it certainly is quite complex. Hopefully, we can have a far simpler spellcaster make into the next edition of the game, at least in a supplement, so that people who like the current system can keep using it, and players that are new to the game or just prefer simplicity can have something that is less complicated to use if they want.
For all the talk about how terrible every spellcasting mechanic that isn't the current one will automatically be, I think it's possible to add a psion class or something that uses Warlock invocations for spells, so that it's available as a less complex option. If I am going to be honest, we already have so many complex casters that it would be nice for one of them to be simplified, though a better way of providing an option like this would be to utilize optional complexity or to just add a new class, since both of these methods seem like manageable alternatives.
As for Warriors and other martials, I think it makes sense to boost their level of complexity and versatility, as long as some of the simple options that are being loved, played, and enjoyed already are allowed to stay.
We already have a simple caster that uses warlock invocations for spells... the Warlock. Warlock is super simple and easy for newbies who want to try out a spellcaster. Just Hex + EB 90% of the time, then occasionally use another spell when you start getting a hang of spells.
We already have a simple caster that uses warlock invocations for spells... the Warlock. Warlock is super simple and easy for newbies who want to try out a spellcaster. Just Hex + EB 90% of the time, then occasionally use another spell when you start getting a hang of spells.
Warlocks also have lots of spells and a spell list as well as Eldritch Invocations. Aside from the fact that being a Hexblade Warlock means that you have to buy or have access to other supplements, I don't think the class is really anywhere near most Martials and Warriors in terms of how complicated it is.
Sure, it's simple for a spelllcaster. That being said, I've actually already explained HERE why I think it isn't actually that easy or inviting to every newbie in the game.
A huge part of the fun of mtg is building your deck and searching for synergies and systems to take advantage of. (Note I haven't played magic in years)
Dnd character build investment is also an important part of dnd. (just a little less important than mtg.)
Complexity and depth are a factors in that process. Easy to understand and use features are good. However in doing that synergies seem less. Unique builds seem less viable in one.
This helps people who want quick and dirty narrative characters but not deep ones.
Basically, IMO, one seems to undermine meta and mecanical investment into the game and relies on narrative/table social investment. I prefer a balanced or at the very least an option.
I disagree very much. One of the main complaints I hear about D&D is that combat is super slow, despite 5e streamlining things. I blame complex class/race features.
Also, I should clarify, I don't consider those Feature to be Rules; they alter/ignore/bend/break already established rules. The misconception that the game's rules are in those features is exactly what's dragging things down. The rule states that you can attack on your action. The feature states you can attack twice on your action.
Dear WotC, I don't want anymore complex features. There shouldn't be such a huge breadth of them, and their descriptions shouldn't be more than three sentences.
To the original poster, not kidding, I think you should try 4e. You pretty much summarized its design.
The point I'm making is that we're starting from 5e which has been brought into a popular, playable balance of the complex options that also include creating a very simple character to play. Everything the UA is doing can be done now by choice, (or most everything), but a LOT of things can't be done with the UA design that make the game cool.
Again, I'l reiterate for the (probably) 137th time on these forums, I"M NOT TALKING ABOUT ONLY COMBAT!!
Combat, in games I play and DM, is usually a good 25-30% of the time spent in game. So the design of a character for me is about the options available for all kinds of situations, exploring, discovering, seeking, investigating, chatting, spying, laughing, eating, buying or acquiring.
It's quite easy to play a Druid that only does a few things if you want to and that fits your character design. The first character I played was a Druid, and I didn't suffer from the complexity. My DM raised a few eyebrows, and had to make some adjustments, but it was FUN, and I learned that I could go into a rabbit hole of possibilities one week or just sneak into a pub as a house cat to pick up info while eating table scraps in another.
Give people credit. Everyone will figure out what they want from the game, but I wil certainly be less interested if the options for fun things to do as a Druid (or magic user) diminish to a preset statblock with 1-2 choices.
We already have a simple caster that uses warlock invocations for spells... the Warlock. Warlock is super simple and easy for newbies who want to try out a spellcaster. Just Hex + EB 90% of the time, then occasionally use another spell when you start getting a hang of spells.
Warlocks also have lots of spells and a spell list as well as Eldritch Invocations. Aside from the fact that being a Hexblade Warlock means that you have to buy or have access to other supplements, I don't think the class is really anywhere near most Martials and Warriors in terms of how complicated it is.
Sure, it's simple for a spelllcaster. That being said, I've actually already explained HERE why I think it isn't actually that easy or inviting to every newbie in the game.
Sure there are lots of options you can dig into, but there are a handful of obvious ones that will lead to a completely effective character without bothering with them. A newbie can be told to take Hex, and Agonizing Blast and then let loose to explore whatever else interests them because regardless of what they pick simply using Hex + EB will make them reliably effective in combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The streamlining of classes, spell lists, other parts of 5e that allow choice to be specific to characters, player goals, and backstories, just reduces the fun of specific designs. I'm not talking about MIN/MAX designs, but in fact the opposite. In the proposed Druid class I'd have to use wildshape for a combat prioritized creature rather than the wide range of specific traits and abilities that 5e allows from teh range of animal statblocks.
Missing would be the really fun, interesting and specific abilities like pack tactics (Dire Wolf), Pounce (Lion and Tiger), Rampage (Giant Hyena), Web + Web Walker (Giant Spider), Standing Leap and Swallow (Giant Toad), and these are only CR 1 animals. There are also VERY FUN situational abilities like an Ape's ranged weapon rock, dig with Giant Badger, a Crocodile's hold breath, a Giant Goat's sure-footedness and Charge, or a War Horse's Trampling Charge (and the ability to carry a fellow character). Not even getting to any of the specific swim/fly animal traits and abilities.
It also requires 5th level for climb which is ridiculous when you can pick a low CR creature very early with this ability in 5e. Plus it just gives it to EVERY creature at level 5 which is also ridiculous (and probably overpowered). Ditto for Multiattack at level 5, which means Druid is then more wildshape focused for melee in combat rather than having a flexible support/skirmish ability.
That is the point. This reduces the FUN, the role play of specific beasts, the flavour of skills, abilities, proficiencies that make this class so unique and enjoyable to those who choose it.
By ostensibly making it easier, this is just reducing the FUN of playing the Druid class.
It feels like Wizards are making a game for people who don't like the specificity of options that are possible in 5e. They're forgetting that these are options, not requirements, for playing the game, and that the game has become more popular because of is flexibility.
I agree with the title. But there are things in your text with which I disagree.
- The new wildshape is very bad in melee since you are very squishy.
- Most of the Druids of the current edition, despite the fact that they have all those options that you mention, end up using only the most typical ones. I have never seen a player transformed into a lion or tiger, and rarely a Giant Hyena or Giant Toad. What I usually see is the dire wolf or bear.
- The climb thing is a mystery to me. I don't know why they made that change, and I don't see it as necessary. There we agree.
Finally I will say that they can perfectly make the class more fun without having to go back to the lists of animals. My bet is that they introduce customization options for the wild shape in a way similar to the eldritch invocations of the warlock (but animal themed, of course). The list of animals was a bad design, and I think it's good that they change it. That design had many problems. But the change has failed as the new wild shape is practically useless. I have played several sessions with the new druid, and in the end I decided to forget about the wild shape (despite being moon circle), and act as a support caster.
Complexity is neither fun or un-fun, it is all about what the complexity adds or removes. Having to search through 5 books to find out what one of the wizard's spells actually does, to find out it does not do what the Wizard thinks it does... that is complexity that is very much not fun. I still believe the templates are the right direction, however adding some options for flavouring, like gaining some traits based on form.
i.e. choose spider, dog, cheetah, bear, etc. to get spider climb, bite attack (grapples), +20 movement speed, WIS+4 strength respectively, is something I think could be implemented that is simpler than 5E but also not overly complex to the point of having to check every creatures stat block to see if they are beast, what their CR is and comparing them to other creatures from multiple sources.
Plus, keeping the template, and adding in these options gives more freedom to the player to play a consistent form. If you want to be wolf themed druid you can keep that shape and pick up the appropriate abilities you want to use. But if you want to be wolf themed now, as you get higher level with access to higher CR's, you need to select a completely different animal and say you're a wolf. Sure, flavor is free, but some might have a DM that says "sorry if you want to use the bear stats you need to be a bear". The template encourages you to flavor your form however you like, while it grows with your character (hopefully, if they make some needed changes to the UA templates).
I'm all for the template. It just needs a lot of work and I doubt this version will go to print. Otherwise, what's the point of the playtest and feedback.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Oh, and to the OP. Less complexity is less fun may be how you see it, but there are as many ways to have fun as there are players. You are entitled to your opinion, but it isn't universal. Otherwise, everyone would be playing Pathfinder (more complexity so it should be more fun, right!)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I agree that more complexity can be more fun it it adds interesting mechanics or choices to the game. That being said, for a lot of people, it's easier and more enjoyable to play something that's simpler, easier to understand, and doesn't require a lot of work.
Yes, this version of Wild Shape isn't very interesting and is weak. That being said, I genuinely don't know what you mean when you say that 1DD is "streamlining classes". Each class so far has been unique and different, and the reason this Druid isn't very interesting isn't because it's less complex (it actually doesn't really feel that much simpler to me at least). The reason is because the developers removed abilities in this playtest without adding anything cool or powerful back in.
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.One word: spellcasting. The current direction they're taking it in is painfully homogenous and is going to remove the core mechanical identity of Wizards.
I’m kind of concerned with what The_Ace_of_Rogues said. I don’t think we’ve seen many of the updated spell casters yet but looking at the new bard it seems to suggest all spell casters will function more like the cleric and druid going forward. They’ll have access to the full list of spells and prepare the ones they think they’ll need for the day. Which is good and simple and on the surface I don’t mind this idea. It works well for the druid, ranger, paladin and cleric. However if it is applied to the wizard and sorcerer they really aren’t going to be different enough. It would seem to mean a wizard doesn’t really need a spell book anymore so flavor-wise they’d be just like sorcerers. Sorcerers are already kind of pointless. With this change they might as well blend the two classes together and use subclasses to distinction between earned power and inherited power.
Now I’ve never liked playing wizards because you have to depend on the DM adding spell books and scrolls for copying to treasure when a lot of published adventures don’t feature them. And as a DM I’m not that fond of trying to remember to add spell books and scrolls to the treasure for the wizard to copy. There is enough to keep track of already. However it is a key part of the concept of one of the most popular and fundamental classes in the game. If they do go the way of the cleric I really hope the come up with a way to keep that researcher element alive. Don’t really care what they do with the sorcerer.
As for the wild shape, that’s a wait and see. In the current edition I like the summoning spells introduced in Tasha’s and I like the updated Beastmaster Ranger and Drakewarden Ranger, well kind of like those rangers, all rangers should have animal companions, so making that system uniform across the classes should work. Might still need a little work though. The Druid getting a familiar brings that class back in theme to the way they once were to some extend, getting their animal friend back. And that animal friend can be used for spying so they haven’t completely lost that utility. I’m also happy that one flying familiar has lost its fly-by move. I was getting tired of every wizard having an owl. Although I’m so far disappointed with the Paladin’s new stead. If it can no longer function independently in battle it’s just a horse and by mid level everyone can afford a horse.
I'm not saying it's good, but that it's geared to only be melee rather than the variety of other possibilities currently available.
Druids at my table are regularly everything from Giant centipedes to Giant Octopi! I like to get creative with Wild Shape because Druids are supposed to know and revere nature, and should understand that nature has tools for just about anything. It's not that most players would use these tools, it's that currently they can.
Your conclusions depress me even more. I don't see the animals lists as a "bad design." I'm not looking to max power for combat though, and like the options for all of the other parts of the game, including role play, with the animals.
So many posts relating to playtest material are about, balance, power, combat.
My comment above is not about power, or combat. It's about creativity. I like complexity for adaptibility, for fun role play and exploration as much as killing stuff. We do agree it removed cool but also that the cool of the Druid was the goal for many who play Druids, not the min/max of a combat powerhouse.
Highly situational.
To an extent, my appreciation of complexity depends on my mood. Sometimes, I just wanna quickly make up some simple characters in an easy-to-grasp system and run a good, old-fashioned "beer and pretzels" dungeon crawl with my old high school buddies on a rainy Sunday afternoon; other times I want a hyper-detailed and painstakingly accurate medieval combat simulation and nothing else will do.
I admit that it also depends on which aspect(s) of the game are gaining/losing complexity.
For example, I always, always, always want more when it comes to weapons and armour in a game. Games that dumb down the choices to something like "There are only three categories of armour: light, medium, and heavy. Anything beyond that is just flavor text" cause me to lose interest immediately. I want to see plausible, culturally coherent representations of my favorite armour types from history, and I want them to have game statistics that reward using them, and I want weapons that do more than just inflict damage--I enjoy having a mechanical reason to select, say, a warhammer to attack a guy in armour vs. a sword.
On the other hand, I feel that magic is entirely *too* complex. There's no reason to have eighty pages of spells with layers upon layers of rules for their subtle nuances while the martial classes get a measly four pages of bland choices in arms and armour. Like, do we *really* need Warlocks and Sorcerers? Are they really that distinct? It seems to me that all the spellcasting classes could be lumped into one catch-all category called "Magic-User" just as easily as all the various metal armour types can be categorized as "Heavy Armour."
So, yeah: I guess I'd like to see complexity increase with regard to weapons and armour, but decrease sharply with regard to spells and magic.
D&D's magic system is one of its greatest strengths. Many other games do exactly what you suggest and get rid of almost all the rules for magic, stripping away high-level spellcasting and restricting characters made in those systems to the rough equivalent of maybe second-level spells at best, and usually not very many of them, with the instruction "use these basic ideas to create your own cool spells with different flavors and trappings!" With no cantrips or other default/resource-free magic, to boot.
Result: magic is fundamentally useless in these systems, a shitty afterthought that's no fun to play since you can't DO anything. You can't affect the world with your spells and solve problems, you're strictly worse than all other characters at fighting your enemies. You're more-or-less a boat anchor that provides no value to your team and are strictly detrimental to the party. D&D is one of the only TTRPGs where magic is magical and allows you to do Awesome Wizard Shit.
More depth and engagement in martial combat would certainly be appreciated, but I don't think the level of Medieval Combat HEMA Simulator you're shooting for, where someone in plate armor is effectively invulnerable to all forms of attack unless you just so happen to have seven feats allowing you to hyperspecialize in the use of anti-armor weapons - at which point you're entirely worthless against unarmored foes since warhammers, picks, and the like are overwhelmingly outclassed by cutting weapons against light targets - is the way to go.
Please do not contact or message me.
That's sad... I've been playing a moon druid for 2 years from level 3-12. Here are some of the things I've used WS for in that time:
- Jaguar/Squirrel to climb trees and leap from treetop to treetop for scouting.
- Giant Badger to dig a tunnel to escape a room that was filling up with acid
- Bear for combat
- Giant Spider to ambush enemies from the ceiling
- Giant Spider to guide the party through a tunnel filled with magical darkness
- Pleisosaur to act as a boat for the party to ride on when a room was filling with water.
- Giant constrictor Snake to keep a dragon on the ground while the paladin smited it.
- Giant Owl to pull a dying ally out of trouble
- Giant Eagle to carry the party across a river
- Allosaurus/Giant Elk to carry the party while we chased down a fleeing enemy.
- Giant Spider to Web someone we wanted to interrogate.
- Mouse so I could ride in someone's pocket as they flew over lava
- Giant Spider to carry an ally up a steep cliff
- Giant Goat to carry an ally across a narrow path
- Giant Bat for a night-time aerial ambush
On the topic of D&D's spell system, I would like to say that I find it both enjoyable and interesting, though it certainly is quite complex. Hopefully, we can have a far simpler spellcaster make into the next edition of the game, at least in a supplement, so that people who like the current system can keep using it, and players that are new to the game or just prefer simplicity can have something that is less complicated to use if they want.
For all the talk about how terrible every spellcasting mechanic that isn't the current one will automatically be, I think it's possible to add a psion class or something that uses Warlock invocations for spells, so that it's available as a less complex option. If I am going to be honest, we already have so many complex casters that it would be nice for one of them to be simplified, though a better way of providing an option like this would be to utilize optional complexity or to just add a new class, since both of these methods seem like manageable alternatives.
As for Warriors and other martials, I think it makes sense to boost their level of complexity and versatility, as long as some of the simple options that are being loved, played, and enjoyed already are allowed to stay.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I disagree very much. One of the main complaints I hear about D&D is that combat is super slow, despite 5e streamlining things. I blame complex class/race features.
Also, I should clarify, I don't consider those Feature to be Rules; they alter/ignore/bend/break already established rules. The misconception that the game's rules are in those features is exactly what's dragging things down. The rule states that you can attack on your action. The feature states you can attack twice on your action.
Dear WotC, I don't want anymore complex features. There shouldn't be such a huge breadth of them, and their descriptions shouldn't be more than three sentences.
To the original poster, not kidding, I think you should try 4e. You pretty much summarized its design.
NEVER SPLIT THE PARTY
We already have a simple caster that uses warlock invocations for spells... the Warlock. Warlock is super simple and easy for newbies who want to try out a spellcaster. Just Hex + EB 90% of the time, then occasionally use another spell when you start getting a hang of spells.
Warlocks also have lots of spells and a spell list as well as Eldritch Invocations. Aside from the fact that being a Hexblade Warlock means that you have to buy or have access to other supplements, I don't think the class is really anywhere near most Martials and Warriors in terms of how complicated it is.
Sure, it's simple for a spelllcaster. That being said, I've actually already explained HERE why I think it isn't actually that easy or inviting to every newbie in the game.
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.A huge part of the fun of mtg is building your deck and searching for synergies and systems to take advantage of. (Note I haven't played magic in years)
Dnd character build investment is also an important part of dnd. (just a little less important than mtg.)
Complexity and depth are a factors in that process. Easy to understand and use features are good. However in doing that synergies seem less. Unique builds seem less viable in one.
This helps people who want quick and dirty narrative characters but not deep ones.
Basically, IMO, one seems to undermine meta and mecanical investment into the game and relies on narrative/table social investment. I prefer a balanced or at the very least an option.
The point I'm making is that we're starting from 5e which has been brought into a popular, playable balance of the complex options that also include creating a very simple character to play. Everything the UA is doing can be done now by choice, (or most everything), but a LOT of things can't be done with the UA design that make the game cool.
Again, I'l reiterate for the (probably) 137th time on these forums, I"M NOT TALKING ABOUT ONLY COMBAT!!
Combat, in games I play and DM, is usually a good 25-30% of the time spent in game. So the design of a character for me is about the options available for all kinds of situations, exploring, discovering, seeking, investigating, chatting, spying, laughing, eating, buying or acquiring.
It's quite easy to play a Druid that only does a few things if you want to and that fits your character design. The first character I played was a Druid, and I didn't suffer from the complexity. My DM raised a few eyebrows, and had to make some adjustments, but it was FUN, and I learned that I could go into a rabbit hole of possibilities one week or just sneak into a pub as a house cat to pick up info while eating table scraps in another.
Give people credit. Everyone will figure out what they want from the game, but I wil certainly be less interested if the options for fun things to do as a Druid (or magic user) diminish to a preset statblock with 1-2 choices.
Sure there are lots of options you can dig into, but there are a handful of obvious ones that will lead to a completely effective character without bothering with them. A newbie can be told to take Hex, and Agonizing Blast and then let loose to explore whatever else interests them because regardless of what they pick simply using Hex + EB will make them reliably effective in combat.