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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6343712" data-attributes="member: 996">Not see'n it.  The wizard has daily slots to manage, and, even at 1st, has to prepare spells each day, and decide which of the several spells & cantrips he has available each round to use.  By itself, that's a level of complexity judged 'too complex' when the fighter briefly had it.  And, as the wizard levels up, that complexity explodes.  But, there's also the complexity at build, even in Basic - the would-be wizard player needs to choose cantrips and spells, and to do so must learn the 8 cantrips and 11 spells well enough to make choices among them.  Compare that (or any other 5e caster we've seen or seen hints of) to an Elemental Sorcerer from HoEC.  Pick a couple of at-wills from a short list, decide which to use and whether to escalate (an encounter resource) each round.  That really was simple.  [sblock="grognard grumbling"](And this is mostly personal preference and a grognard do-it-the-old-way thing, but I really think grouping spells by class & level, as was done in AD&D, makes the game easier to learn than putting all the spells in one alphabetical list.  Because you can just read through the level of spell you just gained access to and compare them all side-by-side when deciding what to learn or prepare.  When you try to familiarize yourself with a spell list in 5e, you end up noticing all kinds of spells of other levels and classes (but starting with the same letter) that you /can't/ cast.  I get that it's easier to look up one spell, if you know the name but not the level, but that one benefit doesn't seem worth it - most of the time, when you want to look up a spell, you know the level & name, because the name's right there on your sheet, under X-level spells.) [/sblock]Actually, I've really been wondering about the whole 'simple class' thing.  Mainly, all you hear is calls for a simple fighter, and, the call seems, well, simple enough, but there's actually some nuance to it, because simple can mean several different things:- simple to create - how long does it take to make a character of the class?  How much of the game must the player learn (or even master) to make an adequate character of the class?- simple to play - how many choices does the character face in play, how difficult are those choices, how thoroughly must you know the relevant game sub-systems to make good decisions for the character.- simple in design - how hard is it to understand, remember, and even (for the DM) mod the class?  Could you easily re-create the class design from memory?- simple to relate to - how little does the class deviate from the every-day commonplace experiences & expectations of the player?  In that last sense, a caster will likely never be 'simple,' but in the others, it should be possible.</blockquote>

Verification