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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9840712" data-attributes="member: 6790260">This leads to a "pick your problem" kind of situation.Basal classes kept simple, no further frills? You've won over the simplicity crowd, but adding complexity can be a huge huge pain and likely loses you the complexity crowd, who tend to be more vocal.Basal classes kept simple, but texture in the opt-ins? You'll probably lose the simplicity crowd, and the complexity crowd may or may not pick up what you're putting down.Basal classes complicated, little variation away from that? You've won over the complexity crowd, but you've alienated basically everyone else.Basal classes complicated, but simpler options exist? You may or may not win over the complex crowd, and even if the simple options are there, it's unlikely the people who want them will bother hunting. They're just out.None of these are super desirable. Hence, we cannot have a one-size-fits-all solution. Trying to make every class complicated doesn't work (3e, and to an extent 4e). Trying to make every class simple works for a bit, but it wears thin long-term (5e, arguably 1e, hence why multiple new classes got made!). You want something actually stable...you have to offer a spectrum of options. Some complicated, some simple. Some simple but with opt-in complexity, some complex but with the ability to opt out. Etc. Yes, that is harder to balance than trying to make them all about the same amount of complexity, but not that much harder. There are much, much higher hurdles like "keeping Wizards balanced without pissing off the Wizard fanboys who want Wizards to be the best at whatever they choose to do".</blockquote>

Verification