D&D (2024) Weapon Mastery + Cunning Strike+ Battle Master

[Shardstone]

I'm not wholly convinced that the champion's simple niche could not be in some way preserved. Some of the additions should be skill or tool related, or some can be basic passive benefits, which the Champion needs as much as anyone else. You could give the main class 3 options, including a simple suggestion, a tactical one, and one to help allies. Any players who want to keep it simple just picks the simple one.

This is literally just the Warrior with subclasses. Why not just play the warrior and let it take a subclass at the same levels of Fighter?

What's even the point of having the Warrior and the Fighter? Sidekick classes are meant to be simple classes for either NPCs or people who are just kind of vibing and dont' want to worry a lot. Why in the world does the Fighter also have to be simple? The Warrior literally is right there. It makes no logical sense in any way, shape, or form to say that the Warrior and Fighter BOTH have to be the "simple martial class."

Not to mention the barbarian is the simplest class in the game. You literally just say "I rage and attack" for 20 levels.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not wholly convinced that the champion's simple niche could not be in some way preserved. Some of the additions should be skill or tool related, or some can be basic passive benefits, which the Champion needs as much as anyone else. You could give the main class 3 options, including a simple suggestion, a tactical one, and one to help allies. Any players who want to keep it simple just picks the simple one.

The position we have been faced with is "cunning action is too complex, we need simpler". The only abilities that seem to be fine are just passive number changes, but those would be incredibly difficult to balance.

In fact, take the rogue again. What simple, passive option could you give the rogue that would balance Cunning Strikes? What could that even look like, to have a simple option as powerful as Cunning Strikes, yet still balanced? I don't know what that looks like. Is it possible to do? Maybe. But it seems like instead the design would suffer and be held back by the attempt.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not to mention the barbarian is the simplest class in the game. You literally just say "I rage and attack" for 20 levels.

I have been informed that the Barbarian is too complex in the past. Not by any players I've run for, just by people on the internet. They believe it is too tactical, because you have to decide when to rage, keep track of the rage triggers, and each rage has different effects.

I disagree. But I have been told this.

 

[Composer99]

So what you want is the champion to have everything it already has and have the knobs and dials of something else. Is that an accurate statement?

No; I want one of the following:

(1) A new class to accommodate the Champion Fighter archetype (or have the sidekick warrior class adjusted to fill its shoes) and the core fighter be adjusted to have more knobs and dials.

(2) Leave the existing fighter class for the Champion archetype and create a new class (perhaps called warlord) to suit the tastes of people who want dials and knobs.

 

[Pauln6]

The position we have been faced with is "cunning action is too complex, we need simpler". The only abilities that seem to be fine are just passive number changes, but those would be incredibly difficult to balance.

In fact, take the rogue again. What simple, passive option could you give the rogue that would balance Cunning Strikes? What could that even look like, to have a simple option as powerful as Cunning Strikes, yet still balanced? I don't know what that looks like. Is it possible to do? Maybe. But it seems like instead the design would suffer and be held back by the attempt.

I've never heard anyone complain that cunning action is too complex. Most people just use it for double movement or to attack and then disengage. The rogue seems like a very popular class. Even cunning strike doesn't have to be complicated because you can ignore it and just keep the extra damage as the default (I think a cost of 1d6 for all the options does seem a bit cheap tbh).

I think the key to keeping a class feel simple is to have options that fit common scenarios rather than several options for every scenario. If you can make a single opportunity attack without using your reaction, that doesn't really require a lot of tactical thinking. If it happens, it happens.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've never heard anyone complain that cunning action is too complex. Most people just use it for double movement or to attack and then disengage. The rogue seems like a very popular class. Even cunning strike doesn't have to be complicated because you can ignore it and just keep the extra damage as the default (I think a cost of 1d6 for all the options does seem a bit cheap tbh).

I did mis-remember, looking back, the exact phrasing of what was said. It was Kurotowa on page 1, post #20. You liked it. The exact phrasing was "The simple D&D class can't be a caster because spells are inherently complex. Barbarian is narrow in playstyle and Rage adds a layer of complication. Rogue similarly has a lot of tactical calculation to optimize Sneak Attack, and Monk is just hella complex."

So, it wasn't cunning action, it was Sneak Attack. We have also been faced with the idea that Rage is too complex. When faced with this... what else can we do? You literally cannot add anything to the fighter, if sneak attack and rage are too complicated for the "simple" class. The only way to do so would be to work from the position of needing new classes.

I think the key to keeping a class feel simple is to have options that fit common scenarios rather than several options for every scenario. If you can make a single opportunity attack without using your reaction, that doesn't really require a lot of tactical thinking. If it happens, it happens.

That seems to not be the position that is being put forth.

 

[Emberashh]

Ive wondered before if people who are really adamant about playing the "simple" class might be suited to being a designated Monster player.

Simple one off statblocks with no real need to worry about how well or not well they do.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is literally just the Warrior with subclasses. Why not just play the warrior and let it take a subclass at the same levels of Fighter?

What's even the point of having the Warrior and the Fighter? Sidekick classes are meant to be simple classes for either NPCs or people who are just kind of vibing and dont' want to worry a lot. Why in the world does the Fighter also have to be simple? The Warrior literally is right there. It makes no logical sense in any way, shape, or form to say that the Warrior and Fighter BOTH have to be the "simple martial class."

Not to mention the barbarian is the simplest class in the game. You literally just say "I rage and attack" for 20 levels.

The warrior isn’t a core class.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ive wondered before if people who are really adamant about playing the "simple" class might be suited to being a designated Monster player.

Simple one off statblocks with no real need to worry about how well or not well they do.

No.

 

[Emberashh]

No.

Its worth questioning if some are just in denial about not actually wanting to play the game and if such people really need to be catered to.