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: 6935484" data-attributes="member: 996">It's not just that it works differently, but that each class is structured and organized differently, and can even do the same things using different mechanics, just for the sake of being different at the price of complexity.  A BM uses maneuvers and extra attack, a Rogue uses single attacks with SA, a Warlock Hex & EB, etc..You do have to understand each class in detail to understand what it's supposed to represent and what it's supposed to do.  Vancian is un-intuitive, yes, always has been.  5e neo-Vancian even perplexes returning players a little, but it remains close enough.  Some classes have the same spell progressions, but not all, so spell levels are /generally/ half the level you gain it at, rounded up.  Generally, for full casters.  You go back to the book a lot, unless you've really mastered it.  Of course, you can break up that complexity.  You only have to play one class at a time.  You play an easy sub-class, like Champion, the first time through and learn the basic mechanics, then you can play one of the more complex ones and re-learn a completely different class progression, lather, rinse, repeat (if you /enjoy/ learning new classes, it's even a feature!), eventually you may even start having fun with it.  ;P  Sure, it'd've been simpler if classes shared more of their progressions than just exp/level and HD.  If all casters got the same number of slots/level, for instance.  If ASI's lined up a little more consistently.  Stuff like that.  You could get to the point that a new player fairly easily learns the first class he plays, and could then be comfortable playing any class from then on.  You can also just go classless, lots of games have done it with excellent results.There's volumes of 'needless' complexity that could have been purged from 5e.  But a lot of classic feel would have been purged with it.</blockquote>

Verification