D&D 5E D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.

[Oofta]

This is why we have martials that "move up and attack" as well as classes that can augment their attacks with spells, superiority dice, etc.
If you get bored with the first, move to the second option.
It's not a difficult thing for the developers to balance.

Which is why we have so many threads about how fighters need to be improved? Don't get me wrong, I think there are already plenty of options if the "basic" fighter doesn't work for you. Heck, I have a player in a game with a fighter that rarely even uses action surge, he just doesn't think to use it or is saving it for when it really matters. He enjoys his character but could probably use something even simpler.

But my real point is that you can't please everyone. There will always be compromises, there is no one size fits all and there is no such thing as a perfect game.

 

[Laurefindel]

The 5e warlock can be very simple to play. It has a lot of mobs and dials though which can make it complex to build one.

ah yes, the infamous mob-summoning warlock... Or is it the one that raises a mob against them in each village? I get confused sometimes.

 

[Umbran]

It's in seven parts about twenty minutes a piece.
...
There is so very much here I'm shocked that the view numbers for these videos are so low

These are probably related.

 

[Retreater]

Which is why we have so many threads about how fighters need to be improved?

I think we have a lot of threads about it because a few folks who frequent these boards are aghast that a simpler build is available to appeal to players who want/need that style of play.
If someone wants a warrior class with more flexibility or different flavor, they can choose a monk, ranger, paladin, barbarian, or a subclass like Eldritch Knight. And if that still doesn't work, take a look at a more tactical, crunchy d20 system like Level Up, Pathfinder 1e or 2e, etc.

 

[darjr]

These are probably related.

So much of it is rich with things people here love to discuss, even a perusal of the slides could engender endless discussion.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've always felt we have had some people making mountains of molehills on this.

I mean, it's pretty obvious when you bring in new people and they immediately pick it up.

I do suspect that part of it is generational, that video games and board games have "prepped" a lot of people so that they can more easily absorb D&D-style rules, even if they haven't played them for years.

What's interesting is that some stuff is actually easier for them to learn than existing players, too. I've found people new to RPGs pick up PtbA-style play even faster than veterans, for example.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think we have a lot of threads about it because a few folks who frequent these boards are aghast that a simpler build is available to appeal to players who want/need that style of play.

The issue is that there's a mismatch between "the players who want/need that style of play" and "the players who want to play Fighters". Your suggestions of "play a different class" or much worse "go play a different game!!!" (almost always a terrible suggestion, especially when talking about something like class choice) are unhelpful and lack insight into why this is so often discussed.

The fact is that the "simple Fighter" isn't for new players. New players rarely even want to play Fighters these days. The "simple Fighter" is a holdover deal for 40+ y/o players who who got started in OD&D/1E/2E and want to play in a very "beer and pretzels" way, and don't even want the very mild decision-making of a Battlemaster. It's got nothing to do with difficulty. It's go nothing to do with being new. There's no-one who needs it due to complexity being too high for them to manage. But there are people who want it solely because they want a character that has no complexity.

It's unfortunate design that they chose to make this be Fighter and only Fighter.

As an aside, I have a player who stopped playing Fighters in D&D because the 5E Fighter is so oversimplified. He's not happy about that, but it's what he's done. You seem to think he should just be happy with that or what, leave the group and go play PF2E? Come on.

 

[payn]

The issue is that there's a mismatch between "the players who want/need that style of play" and "the players who want to play Fighters". Your suggestions of "play a different class" or much worse "go play a different game!!!" are unhelpful and lack insight.

The fact is that the "simple Fighter" isn't for new players. New players rarely even want to play fighters these days. The "simple Fighter" is a holdover deal for 40+ y/o players who who got started in OD&D/1E/2E and want to play in a very "beer and pretzels" way, and don't even want the very mild decision-making of a Battlemaster. It's got nothing to do with difficulty. It's go nothing to do with being new. There's no-one who needs it due to complexity being too high for them to manage. But there are people who want it solely because they want a character that has no complexity.

It's unfortunate design that they chose to make this be Fighter and only Fighter.

Why is fighter so popular amongst folks still after all this?

 

[Charlaquin]

I watched it way back when it came out. Cool stuff.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why is fighter so popular amongst folks still after all this?

Because of the basic concept.

That's it.

Just like people want a magical warrior type, but don't have it, a lot of other people want a character whose primary deal is that they're a skilled warrior, in armour, probably with a sword of some kind. I will say it seems to rather less popular with younger players than older, in my experience anyway. Whereas say, Rogue is as popular as it ever was.