D&D 5E (2024) Mearls has some Interesting Ideals about how to fix high level wizards.

[Zardnaar]

What do people think aboutt a pre con being a "simple" class.

Kinda like starter set but lvl 10 or whatever and done better. Sorcerer and Warlocks come to mind.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What do people think aboutt a pre con being a "simple" class.

Kinda like starter set but lvl 10 or whatever and done better. Sorcerer and Warlocks come to mind.

"Pre con"? I think typos may have eaten an important word or two there, or else that's a term I'm unfamiliar with.

 

[Horwath]

Hence why I dislike it so much when people float Warlock as the "simple" caster--it is anything but. It is only "simple" in the very limited sense that you have fewer spells to memorize the behavior of. In every other way, it is a complex beast; you have to build the class yourself,

Warlock to me is a best class in 5E, both version, just because of that.

fighter my have 2 extra feat slots, but warlock has them 10 extra, but they are not "feats" they are "invocations".
And honestly EVERY class should have been designed that way.
give me few mandatory features over 20 levels that "define" the class and everything else is customizable.

 

[Horwath]

"Pre con"? I think typos may have eaten an important word or two there, or else that's a term I'm unfamiliar with.

I would say preconceived character.
or just example character. Every feature in the class is optional, but there is one premade character as a theme guide.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Depends on which way fanbase swing. Modern trends seem to be simpler though. You and me aren't typical for D&D players.

One reason i suspect 5.5 wont last like 5.0 is the complexity level. Its higher for newbies and casuals.

Let me put it this way:

Games--including D&D--have been trending extremely hard toward maximal simplicity, all the time, for everything, for the past like 15, 20 years. Back in 2008, 2010, that was a big plus. It brought many casual players in, it opened up game spaces to players that had never really been "gamers" before, etc. Video games, tabletop games, hell even board games!

5.5e isn't going to last forever, I think all of us recognize that, but I would be shocked if it tapped out sooner than mid-2029, and at least somewhat surprised if it didn't hold on until sometime in 2030. At that point, we'll have had some variation of 5e for over 15 years--and the design trends that went into 5e's content were already a few years old to begin with. The world of 2030 is going to look rather different from the world of 2010, which is what 5e was a response to.

The pendulum swings. It doesn't stay fixed in place for 20 years. The key thing is that that doesn't mean all complexity all the time either. It means that there needs to be a clear and valued place for simplicity that serves a function--and there also needs to be a clear and valued place for complexity that serves a function.

"Make EVERYTHING simpler" is a bad approach. "Make EVERYTHING complex" is a bad approach. "Demand complexity only for a purpose, and simplicity only when productive" is a good approach. One of the most common complaints I personally hear, even from people who very much do not like complexity, is that 5e feels really shallow when it comes to making choices for your character. That you basically decide everything that will ever matter about the character between level 1 and 3, and from then on you're almost completely locked in to that one thing.

For completely green, "my first character" type players, that's a good starting point. It avoids being overwhelming, helps folks get their start. But people never remain "completely green 'my first character'" type players for long. Maybe--maybe--five years? And that would be a real long time. Now, there are some people who just prefer things that way, a good chunk (probably like...a quarter of players?), and they deserve options which support their interests. Forcing everyone to live by those interests is the problem. Just as forcing everyone to play only ultra-complicated character is also a problem--something 3e was very, very guilty of.

The actual path forward is to have a handful of simple options for every role, and then complex options for every role, and then some middle-of-the-road options, and then some do-it-yourself options for the folks hungry for more. Of course, this is a major design commitment. You have to make sure that those simple classes aren't overpowered, because then nobody will bother with the complex ones, and folks will be annoyed that you do all that complex work for worse results. But they also can't be underpowered, or folks will feel they're punished, paying a tax so they don't have to to a ton of work just to play. That's a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.

Again, it is simply true that too much simplification IS bad for a game, it's just that the effects are usually long-term, not short-term. This absolutely should not be used as an excuse not to make some things simple. It just means we can't use "but some people need simplicity!" as an excuse to never make anything complex, or to avoid a mix solely because a mix is harder to balance.

 

[Zardnaar]

Let me put it this way:

Games--including D&D--have been trending extremely hard toward maximal simplicity, all the time, for everything, for the past like 15, 20 years. Back in 2008, 2010, that was a big plus. It brought many casual players in, it opened up game spaces to players that had never really been "gamers" before, etc. Video games, tabletop games, hell even board games!

5.5e isn't going to last forever, I think all of us recognize that, but I would be shocked if it tapped out sooner than mid-2029, and at least somewhat surprised if it didn't hold on until sometime in 2030. At that point, we'll have had some variation of 5e for over 15 years--and the design trends that went into 5e's content were already a few years old to begin with. The world of 2030 is going to look rather different from the world of 2010, which is what 5e was a response to.

The pendulum swings. It doesn't stay fixed in place for 20 years. The key thing is that that doesn't mean all complexity all the time either. It means that there needs to be a clear and valued place for simplicity that serves a function--and there also needs to be a clear and valued place for complexity that serves a function.

"Make EVERYTHING simpler" is a bad approach. "Make EVERYTHING complex" is a bad approach. "Demand complexity only for a purpose, and simplicity only when productive" is a good approach. One of the most common complaints I personally hear, even from people who very much do not like complexity, is that 5e feels really shallow when it comes to making choices for your character. That you basically decide everything that will ever matter about the character between level 1 and 3, and from then on you're almost completely locked in to that one thing.

For completely green, "my first character" type players, that's a good starting point. It avoids being overwhelming, helps folks get their start. But people never remain "completely green 'my first character'" type players for long. Maybe--maybe--five years? And that would be a real long time. Now, there are some people who just prefer things that way, a good chunk (probably like...a quarter of players?), and they deserve options which support their interests. Forcing everyone to live by those interests is the problem. Just as forcing everyone to play only ultra-complicated character is also a problem--something 3e was very, very guilty of.

The actual path forward is to have a handful of simple options for every role, and then complex options for every role, and then some middle-of-the-road options, and then some do-it-yourself options for the folks hungry for more. Of course, this is a major design commitment. You have to make sure that those simple classes aren't overpowered, because then nobody will bother with the complex ones, and folks will be annoyed that you do all that complex work for worse results. But they also can't be underpowered, or folks will feel they're punished, paying a tax so they don't have to to a ton of work just to play. That's a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.

Again, it is simply true that too much simplification IS bad for a game, it's just that the effects are usually long-term, not short-term. This absolutely should not be used as an excuse not to make some things simple. It just means we can't use "but some people need simplicity!" as an excuse to never make anything complex, or to avoid a mix solely because a mix is harder to balance.

They care about sales. Everything else is subjective preferences.

Simpler will appeal to more casuals. I assume WotC likes the 5E explosion for $$$$$. Also programming D&D beyond.

I woukd be shocked if 5.5 doesnt last 5 years, expect less than 10. Could be wrong.

 

[Zardnaar]

"Pre con"? I think typos may have eaten an important word or two there, or else that's a term I'm unfamiliar with.

Pre constructed. No moving parts.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Its fairly simple. Fighters get indomitable and the first 8 levels are fairly front loaded.

Barbarian falls off level 11ish. Not as hard as Ranger.

At higher levels indomitable, paladin aura, 3rd attack and radiant strikes+ everything beat Barbarians.

Monks get proficiency in all saves. I had a Barbarian player liked amount of damage he was doing. "Whats your wisdom save like?"

Bonus action wisdom save 30' radius iirc. Feared. DC 16 or 17 wisdom save Nalfeshnee iirc.

Barbarian rage also got indirectly nerfed.

I have seen Fighters be mediocre, defined far more by what equipment they use than what class features they have. The class features aren't bad, but they aren't actually defining things. Conversely, I have seen Barbarians who were awesome regardless of what they had or didn't have--and who did not, as far as I could tell, meaningfully "fall off" after level 11. (IIRC that campaign went to 14-ish?)

As with a number of pronouncements you have made regarding the efficacy of various classes in both the short and long term, I simply disagree with your evaluation. Your evaluation makes the Fighter out to be some kind of demigod among classes, nearly unbeatable at everything it does, and my experience is very much the opposite--it can be easily outshone if someone puts in just a little effort. Likewise, your constant Wizard doom-saying is nothing like my experience of the game.

The only way I can see the vast majority of the complaints you raise is if you're playing with people who never do even the tiniest bit of thinking about character effectiveness. A scattershot Wizard, a scattershot Barbarian, a scattershot Ranger? Yeah, they're going to suffer because those classes reward careful consideration to varying degrees--it doesn't require system mastery or optimization, just putting a little forethought into what you're doing and why. Fighter, on the other hand, doesn't really do much of that--a scattershot Fighter will probably do better than nearly any other class because the core is robust.

So...is that the problem here? Are you presuming essentially all players never even think about trying to do better with the tools they have? Again this isn't "optimization", that's trying for being the best you can possibly be. I'm talking about "hmm, magic missile isn't very good damage output...I should probably try chromatic orb." Or "oh hey, Wolf Totem is actually REALLY useful since my party has lots of melee attackers!" That's not optimization, it's just actually caring about effectiveness.

They care about sales. Everything else is subjective preferences.

Simpler will appeal to more casuals. I assume WotC likes the 5E explosion for $$$$$. Also programming D&D beyond.

Short-sighted chasing of year-1 sales isn't good. That's the problem here--for both you and WotC. That's precisely what I'm talking about when I mention things being sanded down so perfectly smooth, people slide right in....and slide right back out again.

As I said: Texture matters. Achievement matters. Depth matters. With no texture, there's nothing to grip people, nothing to keep them invested. With no possibility of personal achievement, with no development of mastery and no ability to see how you've gotten better at play, there's no ownership, no personal investment beyond the story of the character, and that story ends when the campaign ends. With no depth, the only thing to explore and uncover is the world itself--and that world ends when the campaign ends, at least in most cases. (I know there are exceptions, but those exceptions are themselves deeply invested players.)

Casuals are a huge source of revenue and absolutely should not be ignored; exactly the opposite, actually, they should be courted. But when you prioritize them to the exclusion of folks who like complexity, you gut the community. You remove one of the most important blocs, people who are deeply invested and proud of it, people who love to engage and speak out. The core of non-casual players may be only a smaller portion, but they form a critical structural component of the community.

I woukd be shocked if 5.5 doesnt last 5 years, expect less than 10. Could be wrong.

If it lasts to 2029, it will have lasted five years. Hence...you literally repeated what I said, I would be shocked if it doesn't make it to mid-2029. I would be surprised if it doesn't make it to 2030. But I would also be (very!) shocked if it makes it to, say, 2032.

I expect internal efforts to make 6e kicking up sometime in 2028--when they can gauge the long-term response to 5.5e. I expect rumors to start circulating in 2029 or 2030, with an announcement following about a year after the rumors start.

 

[Tigris]

I'll have to check it out when I'm not otherwise occupied. Thanks!

To be a bit more precise:

Beacon is a streamlined/improved lancer (the tactical mecha rpg) but as fantasy with heavy 4e inspiration.

The PbtA (or rather Forged in the dark) part is for the not combat.

You can look at the preview pages to see how simple classes are they are like 1 page of features (with 1-2 pages of higher level unlocks).


I like it because it really condenses things down to a minimum.