D&D 5E Warlock One of the More Complicated 5E classes?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Quickly-

First, I think that your first point is simply re-characterizing. For example:

Yep. You can spin criticism and defense from criticism however you want.

I do, however, think that wanting more from something you already like is not a particularly negative a form of criticism.

If someone says that a class is "bad," because some players have "bad" experiences, then I think it's perfectly fine to point out that it's one of the more popular classes.

I suppose it might be talking past eachother to an extent, but sure, as far as that goes. But, 'complex' in the context its often used around here is not necessarily bad. (Really, complexity is undesirable, in itself, but there is generally a pay-off for that complexity.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is the person looking for solutions, or are they looking to cause problems?

You can't know their motivations.

If you look back to the OP, you will see that this started by saying that the Warlock class is too "complicated," because there weren't clear signs that you were supposed to take EB and the associated invocations. I don't agree with that. Good?

I wasn't responding to the OP (and far be it from me to defend Zard). Nor would it have made much sense if you had been when you said:

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.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...re-Complicated-5E-classes/page3#ixzz47tlna6up

I found that a particularly stilted generalization, and a bizarre implication. The idea that anyone/everyone who finds something 'missing' from a product is unjustified in noting the lack unless they are ready to provide the missing piece, themselves, is unreasonable.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

but I think that you are really, really close to understanding this one.

I find myself quite unable to decode whatever point or joke you were trying to make, there.

If you're trying to make the same point as Umbran, well, he was perfectly clear.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

Rolemaster, which, IIRC, is a game you played, has notoriously complex chargen, I'd say much moreso than most versions of D&D

RM character gen is less complex than Skills & Powers, 3E or 4e. I don't know that I'd say it's less complex than 5e, but it's more transparent.

In RM, basically each skill does what it says on the box, and the higher your number the better. In that sense, it is closer to a free-descriptor game. There is nothing analogous to trying to make sense of action economy, rest cycles and the like (at least until you introduce complex options from later supplements). So there is no danger (say) of setting out to make Legolas and failing. If your numbers in Bow skill and Acrobatic skill are high, you will be able to play Legolas.

Again, this is not a criticism of D&D. But I don't see the point of denying that D&D has complex PC build rules, complex rest rules, complex action economy. If I want to build a character who will be powerful in melee (say, Gimli or Boromir rather than Legolas) I have to think about to hit numbers, damage numbers, action economy, AC, etc. If I've built my character with a high bonus to hit and damage but don't know about action economy, and then someone else comes along who has a good suite of off-turn or bonus action attacks, suddenly my melee hero can end up looking pretty feeble.

The game has a lot of moving parts.

complexity is undesirable, in itself, but there is generally a pay-off for that complexity.

I don't see why complexity is undesirable. A lot of people enjoy manipulating rules.

Maybe another way to put it: whether or not complexity is desirable, it's clearly desired by a good number of players.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't see why complexity is undesirable.

Would 'needlessly complicated' rather than 'complex' make a difference?

A lot of people enjoy manipulating rules.

I can't deny that.

Maybe another way to put it: whether or not complexity is desirable, it's clearly desired by a good number of players.

My thought is that it's for what complexity delivers - more options, rewards for system mastery, greater customizeabilty, deeper play, etc...

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Your entire thesis on "I've yet to see a bad character" (on this or any thread - you say it a lot) is really a truncated "I've yet to see a bad character that's bad from my perspective" (or perhaps "that's bad in an objective sense") without considering the perspective of the player with the 'bad' character (or their subjective experience).

Quite the opposite. I'm saying that the person who made the character, if they chose options interesting to them, is going to have a character that is "good" to them. It's the perspectives from outside that seem to be saying, "That's a bad character by my perspective."

Show me this theoretical person who, from their own perspective, has a "bad" character. 5e is very forgiving. Just because someone makes flavor/style choices, instead of optimal/powerful choices, does not mean their character is "bad". It will still play just fine.

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] identifies key point: "Happy is good, right?" If so, then "unhappy is bad, right?". If not understanding that you can't have two concentration spells active because you thought an invocation was different from a spell, for example, means a character makes a player unhappy - it's a bad character.

Plenty of spellcasters have more than one concentration spell to chose from. Mine do. So I don't get the complaint. Is the player upset at the concentration rules themselves? That's not a character creation choice problem. Nor is it a larger system problem.

If a player wants to play Legolas, but ends up with Larry the Cable Guy because they didn't fully grasp the complex intricacies of how a class works in actual play, and it makes them unhappy? Then that character is "bad". Maybe not to you, but in this case what you think has nothing to do with it.

How did they get from Legolas to Larry? I can't fathom any series of steps in 5e character creation, made in earnest, that would get you so far removed. This, to me, is another round of, "Won't someone please think of the children?" And it's a logical fallacy.