Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8070385" data-attributes="member: 93670">Just from jumping in on a really long thread over the last couple posts,  I think [USER=205]@TwoSix[/USER] is right & your wrong unless you start splitting hairs over the meaning of complexity & if your applying to the system or difficulty involved in modifying it. 5e has very few structral frameworks that are leveraged.[spoiler="for example"]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">When classes get archetypes is all over the map so any houserules involving that needs 13 or more individual versions.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If classes are multiclass friendly  frontloaded things or not depends on well... on if it's a charisma based class or not.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">When characters get asi/feats is 100% unpredictable because some classe get extras but still call them just a plain "ASI" so any houseruling needs to specifically account for each possible class/achetype that gives a feat being.  The regular ASI tied to class levels rather than character level can further complicate things</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Compressing the feat chains was a neat idea in theory, but it pretty much resulted in a handful of must have feats to select from and not enough free wiggle room for players to really pick up those fun fluff feats like skilled & such without seriously hamstringing themselves as opposed to a handful of feat chains that are pretty much must have for any given build but there was room for a player to pick something a little bit fluff & those chains had ways of branching into slightly different forks</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A bunch of formerly half & 2/3 casters were made into full casters to simplify things, but then their class abilities need to be balanced around being full casters and anything aimed at actual full casters where their entire identity is wrapped in being a caster  have all these dabblers also casting x level spells & any treasure/feat/etc aimed at casters needs to consider both groupings as well as hybrid multiclasses</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Practically every ability is a one off stand alone edge case operating as an isolated island so you can't just add in grid combat rules with movement & action restrictions/costs (ie 5 foot step/shift & AoOs) because you'd need to go through and one by one spell out how each ability works.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">instead of getting a set amount of hit points back from natural healing when you set down for the night you roll hit dice whenever you take a smoke break & get all your spells/all your hp/all your class abilitities back when you take a long rest & settle down for the night.  Great, but now a GM can't screw with those using houserules very much & even wotc's dmg based options for doing so are a borked mess because classes are all over the map in what they get from what rest & how much they need each type.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There's no ability damage... sure it's easier to track... but now there's all these monster specific effects that all have less impact in the morning than the twelve bottles of vodka the party drank before settling down for the night</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">cantrips are all single attack things that scale with extra dice based on character level even when multiclassing & extra attacks are class based things that scalebased o class level ... unless it's eldritch blast then it's the better of the two whenever convenient.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">so on & so forth</li> </ul>[/spoiler]There is indeed a sweet spot between the two, but 5e goes so far into simplicity for the sake of simplicity that it makes it dramatically more complex & difficult to work with if your game style is anything but the one true style of campaign that wotc built it for (<a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/177-spell-spotlight-fireball" target="_blank">exhibita</a>: "embrace the imbalance" & "encourae players to learn that spell over less iconc ones", <a href="https://youtu.be/v7A6-yOZC_s?t=385" target="_blank">exhibitb</a> "which was not a part of our original design", <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/possible-way-of-fixing-carrying-capacity.674072/post-8066619" target="_blank">exhibitc</a> simplicity for simplicity causing problems for 5e itself even limited to core 5e alone).</blockquote>

Verification