It's a little different with effects.
In a slightly different vein, for a warlock, EB+Agonizing Invocation+warlock spell list takes care of your contribution to combat pretty well, so your invocations can cover out of combat stuff (pretty much any invocation with the phrase "without using a spell slot" in it). There could be something similar for fighters where there could be some out of combat "martial invocations" that might be helpful if you were playing something like Keys from the Golden Vault where combat, while important when it does happen, doesn't happen that much.
yea I agree
This.
Freedom to do what exactly... I mean they have fewer tools to be imaginative with you sound like the people that said literacy and writing were bad because people would stop remembering things if they can write it down.
Yup them other character types cannot use their imagination its completely impossible. /sarcasm
This.
There is one thing I would like to add to this comment, and it is not meant to offensive. It's meant to be just a different viewpoint.
Players playing fighters like the champion, are most often not "casual." And I would argue, the champion is far from "simple." Experienced players like the champion because it allows freedoms that are not tied directly to their combat skillset. The versatility of a champion during combat seems much more extensive to me than the druid, paladin, or other so called complex classes. It uses more out of the box thinking because you do not have your traditional go to power.
You can probably lay off with the sarcasm and be more charitable to your fellow posters. Scott's just saying why we like the Champion fine, not dismissing other classes.
Yep. I think a good analogy is to look at new players or kids and how they play. They don't know all the rules so they don't have pre-conceived notions on what you can or can't do. They just make stuff up on the fly. It's like how we did it in the old days (and still do, for many of us). Just because a class is mechanically simpler doesn't mean it's played simpler. You can do/attempt everything a battlemaster can do, but you just do it narratively or with a simple ability check or something.This.
There is one thing I would like to add to this comment, and it is not meant to offensive. It's meant to be just a different viewpoint.
Players playing fighters like the champion, are most often not "casual." And I would argue, the champion is far from "simple." Experienced players like the champion because it allows freedoms that are not tied directly to their combat skillset. The versatility of a champion during combat seems much more extensive to me than the druid, paladin, or other so called complex classes. It uses more out of the box thinking because you do not have your traditional go to power.
Sounds like dismissing the players of other classes as being impaired or unimaginative which is crazy given how flexible spells are in 5e. ... the irony I see is those with the highest out of the box power are also given more flexible tools. Its that lack of versatility that is most often complained about wrt the fighter.
Yeah I love when people try this argument "If you were smarter and more creative you would just do things without out mechanics" because OFCOURSE nothing stops the wizard or druid or warlock from doing anything the champion fighter can with "Creativity and without mechanics"
Literally no one is making that argument. It seems to me to be a strawman set up in order to fuel outrage.
Literslly I have read that argument... it isn't mine
and I agree you don't need mechanics for everything... but once you go to "Not mechanics just try" it is 100% balanced any class can try them (see my example of the buffed cleric vs fighter) HOWEVER when one class gets 10 options and the other 2 but both then can then do 17 things that aren't mechanics just creative then that just changes from 10 vs to to 27 vs 19... it's still 8 difference.
if it is just prefrence then we should have simple martial and simple casters also complex martial and complex casters
It's a very rare player that needs a simpler class to engage in Mother May I.
define rare. There are dozens of posters in the last year on this sight that have given examples.
yes it is
so agian why can't we have both
Where are the examples? It's always "well, this one time" but no one can actually point to an actual example. No one on these forums has made the argument that someone who prefers complex classes to be less intelligent or not creative enough. That's not what people who prefer simpler classes are saying. Maybe if you go back you might find one person, but what % of the posts are that? And how many posts by DMs have posted that they'd make a ruling that we found unreasonable? That's what rare is. Something that happens....rarely.
No it's not. No rules will fix bad players. That's been a given for, well, since forever. If it were a game design problem and not a player problem, then every game table from 1974 to 2000 would have experienced this problem. And we most assuredly did not.
You can. That's what we have been saying the whole time. No one is saying we should only have simple classes. Rather it's the opposite. It's people like Incenjucar saying we don't need simple classes. I'm sorry, but the "side" that's advocating for exclusion is your side on this.
