Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jaeger" data-source="post: 8620934" data-attributes="member: 27996">Aside from one shady actor (ZS), I disagree.But our disagreement doesn't matter.Because: Mearls was right to simplify 5e the way he did.Lots of new and casual players have tried the game more than ever before. 5e being more accessible and newbie friendly if not outright helping D&D being played by  more people than ever before, it certainly didn't get in the way.Power creep just raises the bar of accessibility of the system to new players. Yes longtime players love the new switches and dials for their PC's, but it has no upside to bring new players into the fold.That is my knock on the "subclass". They only start at level 3, and they are a feat tree on rails. You make one decision at level 3 (But realistically everyone decides at chargen...) and then your done.I think if the number of class feats cough I mean abilities was properly curated they could have been made more free form in selection.You would not have had an increase in system complexity, but you would have had more actual choices to make in your PC's advancement, which would make them more unique.^^THIS^^Not hard WotC. Just not that hard.I am probably in the minority for not wanting classes to share spell lists. But you can't have everything all at once. Baby steps...</blockquote>