D&D 5E (2024) How I Would Do 5.75

[AlViking]

I don’t know… I’ve recently initiated a couple of new players to the game. One got a Monk, the other a Wizard. Both started at level 1. The Monk player has a vastly easier time.

Maybe the action economy has slightly more options with the Monk, given that the Bonus Action can serve for something. But I find it to be an incredibly forgiving learning curve. You use your focus points in a suboptimal way? No matter, you’re getting them back next short rest, and can already try something else. You forgot what your abilities do? Read a few contiguous paragraphs and it’s all there, all of it, every single thing you could ever do.

Whereas with the Wizard, you have choices to make at level 1 and every level thereafter. There are 50+ level 0 and 1 spells to choose from, more than any other class. You also have choices to make every day when preparing. Don’t remember what spells you can choose from to prepare? You need to flip through the book across a hundred pages and read about an order of magnitude more text than the Monk’s abilities. And even round to round, are you going to use a cantrip, or spend one of your handful of slots for the entire day? Are you going to upcast and forfeit the use of your higher level prepared spells? Tough luck, there’s still a long day ahead and you’re out of slots.

I can see how the Sorcerer could have comparable complexity, though it’s shaped a bit differently (no day to day prep complexity, but similar build-level and round-to-round complexity).

But the Monk? I still don’t see it. It’s a super fun class with nice options. I’m definitely not saying it’s simplistic to the point of being boring, as a 2e Fighter was. No, it’s cool. Just not very hard to learn, and quite forgiving of beginners’ mistakes.

Like I said, it's a judgement call. WOTC has data and feedback on what a large number of people consider complex. Seems like you consider the choices made while leveling up to be more important. Other people? Other people base their ranking more on play at the table and don't spend a lot of thought or effort on picking spells.

To me there are more moving pieces and hence more complexity with a monk than a wizard. But that's just like an opinion.

 

[Corinnguard]

I would change one thing, and that's it.

I would get rid of multi-classing.

So, what are you planning to replace it with? Give us a Persuasion check.

 

[Scott Christian]

So, what are you planning to replace it with? Give us a Persuasion check.

I know the persuasive answer here is: "I would build feats that would let you cross-class, and synergize different class characteristics." But I am not a CEO. And since I don't have to placate anyone, I am going to say: "I will replace with - play your role."

 

[Corinnguard]

I know the persuasive answer here is: "I would build feats that would let you cross-class, and synergize different class characteristics." But I am not a CEO. And since I don't have to placate anyone, I am going to say: "I will replace with - play your role."

Like PF2's Multiclass feats?

 

[Silam]

Like I said, it's a judgement call. WOTC has data and feedback on what a large number of people consider complex. Seems like you consider the choices made while leveling up to be more important. Other people? Other people base their ranking more on play at the table and don't spend a lot of thought or effort on picking spells.

To me there are more moving pieces and hence more complexity with a monk than a wizard. But that's just like an opinion.

For sure it’s a judgment call, and to each their own…

But I’m not trying to say build complexity outweighs round-to-round complexity.

I’m just trying to relate my own empirical evidence of actually teaching the game to two players whose first classes they’ve ever played were Monk and Wizard. It’s a fairly different game to learn based on which class you’re coming into it with, I think we can all agree at least on that. So my question then is: why was the game so much harder to learn for the Wizard player than the Monk player? Maybe it’s build or this or that, I don’t really know, I’m just speculating. Maybe it’s a skill issue also, or motivation, or anything else. Possible. Whatever the explanation is, it’s still a fact that the learning curve was vastly different.

Anyway, I get your point that my anecdata is outweighed by the large amounts of data WotC received during their playtest. Sample size-wise, it’s a no contest. But also, I am tempted to ask: who made up the play tester sample? Is it a fair hypothesis that 95%+ of the play testers were veteran TTRPG players willing to put up with alpha quality material, and not many were newbie players? If so, we have to wonder what does complexity mean to a veteran TTRPG players who played at least one but maybe several previous editions of the game? Maybe for them it’s a matter of relative power levels: Monk is a relatively weak class and Wizard a relatively powerful class, therefore it is "complex" to perform competitively in a high powered game with a Monk and comparatively easy to do so with a Wizard. And maybe that is 100% true, but then that definition of complexity has no relation to my definition, which was: how hard is it to teach the game to someone who never played D&D if their first class was X?

 

[Scott Christian]

Like PF2's Multiclass feats?

I haven't played PF2, but I do have the books and have read them. I am not sure it's as simple as that on that side of the stream. But, I do know that I would like D&D to be general and an overall experience to many. I also know that the ones that will alter D&D are the ones that will do it regardless of the rules. So for D&D 5.7599999999, I would eliminate multi-classing all together. No crossover. If a crossover happened, they'd have to put it into canon through a sub-class.

 

[Zardnaar]

For sure it’s a judgment call, and to each their own…

But I’m not trying to say build complexity outweighs round-to-round complexity.

I’m just trying to relate my own empirical evidence of actually teaching the game to two players whose first classes they’ve ever played were Monk and Wizard. It’s a fairly different game to learn based on which class you’re coming into it with, I think we can all agree at least on that. So my question then is: why was the game so much harder to learn for the Wizard player than the Monk player? Maybe it’s build or this or that, I don’t really know, I’m just speculating. Maybe it’s a skill issue also, or motivation, or anything else. Possible. Whatever the explanation is, it’s still a fact that the learning curve was vastly different.

Anyway, I get your point that my anecdata is outweighed by the large amounts of data WotC received during their playtest. Sample size-wise, it’s a no contest. But also, I am tempted to ask: who made up the play tester sample? Is it a fair hypothesis that 95%+ of the play testers were veteran TTRPG players willing to put up with alpha quality material, and not many were newbie players? If so, we have to wonder what does complexity mean to a veteran TTRPG players who played at least one but maybe several previous editions of the game? Maybe for them it’s a matter of relative power levels: Monk is a relatively weak class and Wizard a relatively powerful class, therefore it is "complex" to perform competitively in a high powered game with a Monk and comparatively easy to do so with a Wizard. And maybe that is 100% true, but then that definition of complexity has no relation to my definition, which was: how hard is it to teach the game to someone who never played D&D if their first class was X?

Wizards like a shotgun ahell. Load up and fire. Once you've loaded it you just fire it.

Monks ha e to consider est option to use and when to weigh up conditions, forced movements, prone etc.

Wizard can be simple. Monks easy to screw up along with warlock and sorcerer.

 

[Raduin711]

I feel like certain "problem solver" spells need to go away, or better yet, turned into magic items. knock, comprehend languages, tongues, create food/water, goodberry, rope trick, etc. magic should be helpful in solving these problems, but not a quick and easy low level solution. these are adventure killers.

 

[Zardnaar]

I feel like certain "problem solver" spells need to go away, or better yet, turned into magic items. knock, comprehend languages, tongues, create food/water, goodberry, rope trick, etc. magic should be helpful in solving these problems, but not a quick and easy low level solution. these are adventure killers.

They do easy mode exploration.

Comprehend languages though everyone gets common plus 2 more languages.

High chance if they pick well they cover the bases.

 

[Raduin711]

They do easy mode exploration.

Comprehend languages though everyone gets common plus 2 more languages.

High chance if they pick well they cover the bases.

in regards to exploration, part of the ranger's problem is that wilderness survival is kind of their thing, and a couple first level spells shouldn't replace them. If you, as DM don't want to focus on wilderness survival, then you can give them magic items to solve the issue. this puts it into the dm's hands.

As for languages, say you find an ancient tablet that they need to understand. you could come up with a puzzle, give your pcs a kind of "rosetta stone" to decode the language, or they could find an npc who can help them. with comprehend languages, the answer is 24 hours away, at most.