I think it is possible, in D&D, to make a "bad" character without choosing things you have no interest in.
One of the downsides of class-based systems is that you can end up choosing things you have no interest in (or even actively don't want), because they happen to be bundled with other things that are vital to the concept.
All I'm saying is that D&D's PC creation rules are among the most complex of any RPG I've ever played
Y'know, 'among' makes that a less meaningful statement. Rolemaster, which, IIRC, is a game you played, has notoriously complex chargen, I'd say much moreso than most versions of D&D, but it and D&D could still be 'among the most complex' systems...
and trying to judge what will or won't be effective in play relative to a given set of desires tends to be far less transparent than in some other systems.
OTOH, you can have complexity, but still have relative transparency. Or you can have complexity in chargen, but short-cut it with pre-built defaults or DM-created pregens.
The solution to the horrible, terrible complexity of the Warlock (which I don't see) is to, um, provide options to allow people to switch builds on the fly.
Heh. I think the assumption that the Warlock is 'meant' to be a simpler alternative might spring from it's short-rest-recharge mechanics, which it has in common with the poster-boy for simple, the Fighter. It's not /that/ simple. And, of course, it does come up short when measured against the much more complex/versatile wizard, so making it more complex seems like a solution, though to a different problem. :shrug:
And, to the point that there are reflexive 5e defenders; the same point could be made that there are some people who concentrate on the things 5e doesn't have, yet don't seem to want to make their own stuff for it. Don't get me wrong- some people prefer official stuff, and like rules.
Doesn't seem like the same point, at all. You have some fans who happen to want more for their favorite game, and some other fans who don't want to see their favorite game criticized, even in what is a fairly constructive way.
But the amount of negativity I see on the internet >>>>>> than the amount I see in real life, so I am always curious as to why people make it a point to complain when others seem ... happy.
I get that there's a fair bit of general negativity on-line (if you're happy, you have less need to vent, perhaps), but there's a lot less blatant/persistent negativity towards 5e than towards the prior two editions (really, even compared to the prior 3, for those of us who remember the whole Role v Roll thing on UseNet). By the same token, there should be less impetus for uncritical apologists to jump to its defense when faced with legitimate criticism....
Right, and, often, quiet.
