Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6166072" data-attributes="member: 1465">Good article overall, but the following is not entirely true:How much did the Fighter become more complex in pre-3ed? A bit more perhaps, but I doubt it was much more complex.I can't speak for 4e, but in 3e the complexity added to the Fighter as levels go by, is entirely in the form of feats. However, 3e had plenty of passive feats: Improved Initiative, Iron Will/Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Skill Focus, Run, a few archey feats, Ambidexterity/Two-Weapon Fighting, several "Improved X" feats... All of these are in core, so available to all. You can criticize the usefulness of some of these feats, but you cannot say they really add complexity, they are all pretty much "add & forget" bonuses. Thus it was definitely easy to play a low-complexity Fighter in 3e. Rather, it was less easy to play a high-complexity Fighter, you'd have to buy supplements at least.Other martial classes were more complex, but IMHO they were hardly "high-complexity". Instead, spellcasters have always been high complexity, due to having to choose what spells you know, what spells you prepare, what spells to cast. The 3e Sorcerer was a good attempt at a low-complexity spellcaster, significantly reducing the number of spells known and removing preparation. However, that required an entirely separate class.I don't know what could be done to reduce the complexity of spellcasters in 5e. Currently the number of spells prepared is a lot smaller than in previous editions, so they are already less complex, except the Wizard due to casting Rituals from all known spells. Personally I would also limit the number of known spells to Clerics and Druids, to the same numbers as Wizards. But this is a no-go for a lot of gamers, so it won't be done.</blockquote>

Verification