I totally get the appeal of simplicity. I definitely do not wish to push complexity down anyone’s throat.
Obviously, any splatbook beyond the PHB adds complexity no matter what. And obviously, each DM can choose to impose the use of core rules only, and each player can choose to refrain from looking at splatbooks even if the DM allows it (FOMO notwithstanding).
All that said… if we do open the door to splatbooks and accept that they will introduce more complexity, then I think it is still worth having a conversation about what the shape of that complexity is.
Let’s take a concrete example: how should the Arcane Archer be designed? It could be a:
- Fighter subclass (that’s what it was in the recent UA, unless I’m mistaken).
- Ranger subclass.
- Subclass of any other class. Maybe Wizard, for a Bladesinger-with-a-bow kind of vibe. Or Bard, for a my-harp-also-shoots-arrows kind of vibe, etc.
- Bundle of feats. Maybe there is an "entry feat" and a "capstone feat" with a few more in between, like the paths we’ve seen in the villainous options UA, or maybe some other style (fully independent feats, or tree-like, or chain-like, etc.).
So let’s consider which of these options are simpler or more complex.
If you wanted to play a Fighter but none of the existing subclasses caught your fancy, then making the AA a Fighter subclass is a slam dunk. This is the optimal case. Very clean and simple indeed.
If you felt like your character should have had more of a wilderness vibe, and that a Ranger would have fit better, then you’re looking down the barrel of a two-way multiclass. But what does that mean? Concretely it means 17 possibilities, ranging from Ranger 1 / Fighter (AA) 19 all the way to Ranger 17 / Fighter (AA) 3. And that’s the level 20 build, but the progression from 1-20 in terms of leveling order has more permutations than I care to compute right now.
If you felt that Wizard or Bard were closer to your AA concept, you have the same complexity level as with the Ranger/Fighter multiclass above.
If AA was a subclass of any of the other classes you would still have all of the same situations, but with some of the roles reversed, so it doesn’t really solve anything, it’s just wack-a-mole.
If you wanted to do something more complex like the 3.5e Fochlucan Lyrist, which was some sort of triple threat arcane/divine/martial prestige class, then you would already have your hands full trying to multiclass between Bard, Druid and whatever else. If you are forced to squeeze a Fighter subclass in there too when you otherwise didn’t intend to, then that may be quite complicated, if not impossible. (There isn’t really a way to be a proper triple threat build in 5e rules as was the case in 3.5e so while this example is a theorycraft challenge, it would be very unlikely to be a powerful build, more likely a very weak one that we’re trying to optimize to be the least weak possible while still attaining the desired flavor.)
What if instead… you still had the option of multiclassing any way you wanted between Fighter, Ranger, Bard and/or Wizard or anything else, BUT you also had the option of playing a single-classed character and pick up anywhere between 1 and 3-4 feats to layer the AA flavor on top? I think the build complexity could be much smaller, since single-classing is inherently simpler (and overall better supported by 5e rules anyway) than multiclassing.
So… simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. I get it that to some people subclasses feel simpler. And when they fit well they most certainly are! It’s just that oftentimes they don’t fit that well, and then you end up twisting yourselves into knots with multiclassing when 1 or 2 feats on top of a single-class build could have been perfectly fine.
… well, if sameness is already what we have anyway, then why does it matter?
