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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 9841360" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Yeah build simplicity is, I think, absolutely required to call a class simple. Even my own game, Crossroads, I would never call the characters simple just because they are simple to play in a session. They are complex, and the game is simple. Yeah the Warlock is far from simple. I don't even agree that the simplest playstyle of warlock is the path of least resistence. Focusing on Eldritch Blast isn't obvious. I have run for at least a hundred Warlocks, many run by casual players, and vanishingly few did what you are saying is obvious and the path of least resistance, even the ones that wanted simple gameplay. It is only obvious to people with system mastery. Really? I definitely disagree that even the simplistic EB is as simple as it would be if it were instead statted out as a "ranged spell weapon". Which is IMO how it should work, partly because then the pact of the blade can just get to use it as a melee spell weapon. And if you bind a weapon, you can use the properties of the Eldritch Blast weapon or the weapon you bonded, which gives you a fairly simple but meaningful layer of depth in play. It would also allow the warlock to have total exclusivity of Eldritch Blast which is a good thing IMO. But this is a tangent. In a game that is going to just have one arcane class, I guess. Not in a version of dnd. In a dnd, this is a different kind of class from the wizard. And the last thing we need is for all spellcasters to be fundementally the same to build. Ignoring build complexity and only worrying about turn by turn action complexity is a mistake, unless you are building a new game rather than the next version of dnd. Yes, there is. Class identity. Some of it could and should be part of multiple classes, just like how most of the fighter is common to warrior types but only the fighter masters all of it, I would have the Wizard master all of the common mage type features, while the suggested class just has one or two.</blockquote>

Verification