D&D 5E What is balance to you, and why do you care (or don't)?

[Undrave]

You need to keep the Champion maneuverless. There has to be a simple martial(Champion) and simple caster(Warlock) for those people who don't like or want complexity, and I've run into a number of them over the years.

Lunging Maneuver. "Hit a guy over there, get extra damage". It's not hard.

Not simple enough. Even the "simple" totem Barbarian has 3 choices to make from among 3 options each time. 18 different combinations compared to the Champion's 0. It's not terribly complex, but I've played with a number of players who don't want to have to make decisions like that. They just want to write down what they get at a level and move on. The game is in their words, supposed to be relaxing fun, not involve work. D&D is an escape for them and they don't want to have to worry about character creation choices beyond race and class. The Berserker is often more maniacal and mindless in battle than players want. I've seen very few who have wanted to play one over the years due to the fluff and/or mechanics of it.

Plus, as I said, there is no good reason to change(or get rid of) the Champion. It's there for them, not you. You can pick from the other Fighter options or campaign for a new subclass that fits your needs.

The Champion actually has 2 decision points because it gets 2 fighting style on its way to level 20.

And, I'm sorry, but 3 decision point isn't hard and the Totems give you basically passive buffs. The Bear is basically just 'be tougher', how is that in any way difficult or complicated? Heck, you don't even need to choose more than once and simply stick to the same totem all the way though. It's more complicated to order a sandwich at Subway for pete's sake and that thing will last you 30 minutes top, you pick a totem once, at the same time you pick the subclass by the way, and you're set for multiple game sessions.

If that's 'too complicated', present it to your player without the other totems as the Bear Totem Barbarian. Nobody ever picks the other ones anyway

Also, the Berzerker exist.

At some point we gotta ask ourselves how much more simplified we can make things for people who, frankly, don't seem to care about the game at all.

 

[Maxperson]

rogue, ranger, wizard, just off the top of my head. now there are concepts in them, but they each have multi and you can pick another class (or background in some cases) and stillplay that concept.

They are not only all concepts, but no other class fits those concepts. Unless you're proposing caster and martial as concepts. A Wizard is a specific kind of caster concept that is further refined via it's subclasses. Same with the Ranger and Rogue.

if you want to be 'the magic guy' you can be a sorcerer a wizard a bard a warlock.
if you want to be the 'healer guy' you can be the divine soul sorcerer, the cleric, the druid, the artificer, the bard
if you want to be the tough weapon guy you can choose from classes with magic, or fighter.

Well, no. "Tough weapon guy" is also Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian if you're going to go that vague with your concepts. Hell, it could even be a Bladesinger when you get right down to it. When I played my Bladesinger I spent more time having fun fighting in hand to hand combat than casting higher level spells.

infact it gets harder if you just want non magic, you have some subclasses of fighter or rogue (I say monk too but I understand why some disagree)

And Barbarian. There are non-magical Barbarians.

then how do we get artificer, sorcerer, warlock and wizard all covering magic guy?

What does this have to do with a concept being removed by choosing a class/subclass as the SIMPLE one? Artificer, Sorcerer and Wizard are not simple classes.

 

[Maxperson]

Lunging Maneuver. "Hit a guy over there, get extra damage". It's not hard.

If it's just an ability and not a choice or reliant on dice, that's fine.

The Champion actually has 2 decision points because it gets 2 fighting style on its way to level 20.

Okay. But those decision points are simpler, because for the most part they're static once chosen. Protection is the most complex and the player who wants simple will just avoid that one.

And, I'm sorry, but 3 decision point isn't hard and the Totems give you basically passive buffs. The Bear is basically just 'be tougher', how is that in any way difficult or complicated? Heck, you don't even need to choose more than once and simply stick to the same totem all the way though. It's more complicated to order a sandwich at Subway for pete's sake and that thing will last you 30 minutes top, you pick a totem once, at the same time you pick the subclass by the way, and you're set for multiple game sessions.

Yes, more complicated. The Bear is only passive at the first tier. The others requires the player to inform the DM about the disadvantage and remember that in case the DM forgets, or track and remember the advantage on strength checks in certain situations.

I'm not saying the Barbarian is terribly complex. It's not. But it is more to track than people who just want to swing and hit stuff want.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They are not only all concepts, but no other class fits those concepts. Unless you're proposing caster and martial as concepts.

lets do rogue... what concept can you not play as a monk, as a fighter or a bard?
theif? that is anyone who steals
acrobat... maybe closer
assassin is like the easiest out ever that is a job (and one many adventurers could claim)

ranger... is that a wilderness warrior, a scout, a garilla fighter? all able to be done (and in some cases batter) as other classes

A Wizard is a specific kind of caster concept that is further refined via it's subclasses. Same with the Ranger and Rogue.

what are those concepts? the closest I can come is wizard is the prep caster

Well, no. "Tough weapon guy" is also Ranger,

who has spells

Paladin

who has spells

and Barbarian

if you want to use rage (although I did have fun refluffing that to battle meditation/monk)

if you're going to go that vague with your concepts. Hell, it could even be a Bladesinger when you get right down to it. When I played my Bladesinger I spent more time having fun fighting in hand to hand combat than casting higher level spells.

and I totally get that... the best melee combatants also are the most versitle since they are full casters.

And Barbarian. There are non-magical Barbarians.

yup missed that "some subclasses of barbarian"

I bet there are not 20 class/subclass that don't use magic...

What does this have to do with a concept being removed by choosing a class/subclass as the SIMPLE one? Artificer, Sorcerer and Wizard are not simple classes.

it shows that we can have a bunch of arcane spell guys with minor varriations so you can fine tune your magic guy down... martial guy we have 1/10th at best

 

[Maxperson]

lets do rogue... what concept can you not play as a monk, as a fighter or a bard?

For starters, I can't play a Rogue. Bards are a musical, spellcasting lore class, not a skill monkey, sneaky thief type Rogue. Monks are monastical, martial arts using, hand punching holy men. Totally not a Rogue. Fighters are front line, weapon master, beat sticks, not Rogues.

There is no class that fits the Rogue concept than a Rogue. Perhaps your conflating the rogue attitude(Han Solo, Swashbuckler, etc.) with the Rogue class.

ranger... is that a wilderness warrior, a scout, a garilla fighter? all able to be done (and in some cases batter) as other classes

While other classes can say they are wilderness warriors, scout things, etc., not one of them can fit the Ranger concept. Not a single one. Rangers go beyond those simple tags.

what are those concepts? the closest I can come is wizard is the prep caster

A studious spellcaster that learns magic through learned words, symbols and gestures. Who relies on his spellbook for much of his power. A seeker of ancient knowledge.

Sorcerer fails to be a Wizard. Innate magic doesn't fit the above. Bard fails terribly. Warlock? Nope. Wizards don't need a pact and Warlocks don't use spellbooks. There isn't another caster that can fit the Wizard concept.

if you want to use rage (although I did have fun refluffing that to battle meditation/monk)

Those are options, though, for weapon beat sticks. They have spells, yes. That doesn't change their weapon using tough guy concept. And to be honest with you. I played a Paladin to 14th level and I think Misty Step was the only spell I ever used and then only sometimes. Smiting was generally a far better option for those spell slots. If I wasn't Oath of the Ancients, I wouldn't have even cast that.

I bet there are not 20 class/subclass that don't use magic...

I bet you are right. 5e for whatever reason, went very heavy on the magic for classes/subclasses.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not simple enough.

Then let's three-point shot 'simple' into the garbage.

 

[Maxperson]

Then let's three-point shot 'simple' into the garbage.

If you can provide a better reason than you don't like it, sure. Show me objectively why people who want simple should not have a simple class to play. One good reason is all I'm asking for.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If you can provide a better reason than you don't like it, sure. Show me objectively why people who want simple should not have a simple class to play. One good reason is all I'm asking for.

Because it consumes design space in a game where the players are so hyper-sensitive to 'niches' that as soon as you have the simple thing, you can't have the interesting thing that fills the same niche. The Fighter isn't allowed to grow too far because the structure needs to conform to the empty vessel that is the Champion.

If D&D fans couldn't be depended upon to lose their minds over having say the Fighter, who is forced into serving the simple Champion, and the Weaponmaster or something that is as deep, complex class, maybe we could have some parity, but if more than 0 is 'not simple enough', then you have to sacrifice simple or complex and I'm voting simple because at 0, it adds nothing to the game.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There is no class that fits the Rogue concept than a Rogue. Perhaps your conflating the rogue attitude(Han Solo, Swashbuckler, etc.) with the Rogue class.

no you are mistaking class name for concept... you can't play something that says rogue on the class name.

While other classes can say they are wilderness warriors, scout things, etc., not one of them can fit the Ranger concept. Not a single one. Rangers go beyond those simple tags.

what concept?

A studious spellcaster that learns magic through learned words, symbols and gestures. Who relies on his spellbook for much of his power. A seeker of ancient knowledge.

pact of the Tomb warlock. a studios spellcaster that learns magic through learned word, symbold and gestures. Who relies on his 'book of shadows' for much of his power a seeker of ancient knowledge.

Sorcerer fails to be a Wizard. Innate magic doesn't fit the above. Bard fails terribly. Warlock? Nope. Wizards don't need a pact and Warlocks don't use spellbooks.

1/4 of all warlocks use books (maybe 1/5 is there a tailsman now?) and the only thing you want is to learn magic it can be anyone... you are describing the mechanic of a class or the name of the class... not concepts

There isn't another caster that can fit the Wizard concept.

there are plenty

Those are options, though, for weapon beat sticks. They have spells, yes.

and thats the thing... you want a slightly diffrent spell caster it is AOKAY... if you want a weapon non magic good luck with the few choices you get.

That doesn't change their weapon using tough guy concept. And to be honest with you. I played a Paladin to 14th level and I think Misty Step was the only spell I ever used and then only sometimes.

so you think refluffing paladin to fighter is easier then a tomb lock to wizard?

Smiting was generally a far better option for those spell slots.

and magical still

If I wasn't Oath of the Ancients, I wouldn't have even cast that.

and the channel divinity is pretty magic too,

I bet you are right. 5e for whatever reason, went very heavy on the magic for classes/subclasses.

I like to call it Caster Supremacy

 

[James Gasik]

What we need is a variant Rage, kind of like the 3.5 PHB2's Berserker Strength that activates when you're at a certain hit point threshold (I like at or below 50% myself, just like the old bloodied condition). So when you are beat up, you are stronger. Done.