Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WhosDaDungeonMaster" data-source="post: 7557322">They are very similar, of course, and I am certain that was the intent in their design. But, as I've been focused only on the Barbarian so far, so much was left out from the 1E version. And to my style of play, I am seeing too much from the archetypes that are making the characters OP.A lot of the archetypes are also 1E multiclassing options (Eldritch Knight for instance is a Fighter/Magic-User basically). I would rather the characters just multiclass. Also, I am in no way limiting player options any more than I did in 1E. I am just asking the players to define their characters themselves instead of using pre-made archetypes. Players has plenty of options in 1E when we played it and no one ever complained about a lack of them!I agree and I don't think 5E's design is "bad" either, it just doesn't fit the style of play I want as a DM. Removing the archetypes and folding necessary features from them back into the core classes resolves this for me. Part of this is also born from the fact that very few of my players find archetypes that really appeal to them in any way. When it comes to choosing an archetype, you are still forcing your character down a preconceived path, and most are *meh* at best IMO. My players end up choosing what they see as the best option, but still aren't happy about them.And if you are that happy with it, I am glad for you. I am not. Like many people here I have been playing D&D in various forms for 40 years or so, and there are a lot of aspects of 5E I like, but just as many that I feel were over-simplified or deviated WAY too much from established conceptions of the classes. Paladins are no longer restricted by alignment, neither are Barbarians, Monks, Rogues, Rangers, etc. In fact, alignment is basically worthless in 5E and should have just been removed completely if that was their intent. Multiclassing makes certain combinations laughable compared to 1E! "Sure, go ahead and play your Barbarian/ Sorcerer/ Paladin... that makes tons of sense." LOL! Sure, a Barbarian which in 1E detest magic and distrust it, can now pick up a level of Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard at 2nd-level...Also, too many options, especially for new players, is overwhelming. Most of my players (3 of the 5 have only played 5E and for just a few months now) debate back and forth with themselves about what to do next with their character. "Should I go this archetype or that? When should I multiclass to my first level of Monk?" and so on. And when an archetype doesn't fit their view of the character, they start exploring homebrew stuff online, most of which they have shown me is way OP!!! It is laughable and I can only smile and shake my head, saying, "No, but maybe we can tone it down so it might work," and then we are left with yet another homebrew variant archetype. Sigh...I know most of you like that direction. I don't obviously. I think playing the game is more important than worrying about what features you can get that make your character so powerful that the encounters which should be difficult aren't. I'd rather play a 1E/5E hybrid, like I did with 1E/2E fo decades, than quit 5E altogether. There really is a lot I like about it, but for me the feel is just too far "beyond" (beyond what? I don't know... it just doesn't sit well with me).</blockquote>

Verification