Simple classes for 1D&D, 1/3; Warrior.

[Horwath]

I'm personally for a little complex 1D&D edition in comparison to 5E, yes, looking at you LevelUp.

But considering opinions in this thread:

A simpler game is a better game...for us

Here's what I mean-- The core, mainline 1st edition game should be streamlined and simplified, as is happening in 1D&D. By making things easier to understand, a little bit more fluid, and a little bit more organized, they encourage both third party developers, their own freelancers, and...

www.enworld.org

maybe we could have it both ways if we get 3 simple(or simpler) classes in PHB for those that want a simpler class to play,

so, 1st out of 3(warrior, expert, mage) it will be the Warrior:

basically, just a beefed up version of NPC warrior class to be in line with "normal" classes for 5E/1D&D.
Based on simpler Fighter(champion).

 

[Emberashh]

I still stand by escalating complexity being the better option.

Namely because it meshes better with the state of the game group at various times. It can be easy to get into at the start, making it easier to get a group going, but then develops more meat as time goes on, giving a group more of a reason to stay together.

 

[Horwath]

I still stand by escalating complexity being the better option.

Namely because it meshes better with the state of the game group at various times. It can be easy to get into at the start, making it easier to get a group going, but then develops more meat as time goes on, giving a group more of a reason to stay together.

I agree 100% with you, this is just an option for the other side of the argument.

 

[Emberashh]

I agree 100% with you, this is just an option for the other side of the argument.

Sure, and I mean its not an either/or either.

In my RPG, I deliberately designed the Barbarian to be less robust than other classes, but the key I think is that it can choose to go more complex within its abilities if it wishes (through subclass), but also that what it does get largely exist as passives that are apply and forget, making it easy to track and keeping the progression it has simple and straightfoward.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would imagine the requirement to have to review and select 9 different feats would be a stumbling block for some people's beliefs that this warrior was "simpler".

When you'd really need to do would be to just assign specific ones as ASIs, and the other ones as feats already chosen by the Warrior class. So the Warrior gets Skilled at 2nd level, ASI at 4th, Toughness at 6th, ASI at 8th etc. so the player has to make no choices and everything is written and handed out to them. But in truth even that many abilities are probably too much.

But it's the same reason the simple Caster would not have a spell list, but instead just be given the spells that the playtest has assigned to the classes via their quick creation. You want to be a simple caster... you get these X spells at Y level, no changes or questions asked.

 

[mellored]

I would imagine the requirement to have to review and select 9 different feats would be a stumbling block for some people's beliefs that this warrior was "simpler".

Agreed.

At very least.
"You gain +2 Str, or may take another feat".

Which is what they have been doing with spells.

You have the following spells prepared:... Alternatively, you can prepare...

 

[Horwath]

I would imagine the requirement to have to review and select 9 different feats would be a stumbling block for some people's beliefs that this warrior was "simpler".

When you'd really need to do would be to just assign specific ones as ASIs, and the other ones as feats already chosen by the Warrior class. So the Warrior gets Skilled at 2nd level, ASI at 4th, Toughness at 6th, ASI at 8th etc. so the player has to make no choices and everything is written and handed out to them. But in truth even that many abilities are probably too much.

But it's the same reason the simple Caster would not have a spell list, but instead just be given the spells that the playtest has assigned to the classes via their quick creation. You want to be a simple caster... you get these X spells at Y level, no changes or questions asked.

just put +2 ASI feat as 1st in feat list and all other are "optional" as as you mentioned put Skilled and Though as secondary feat choice.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Choosing a fighting style and looking to see if a natural 19 is rolled is probably too complicated for the theoretical 'simple' players we're trying to protect from having to engage with the game.

 

[dave2008]

Choosing a fighting style and looking to see if a natural 19 is rolled is probably too complicated for the theoretical 'simple' players we're trying to protect from having to engage with the game.

No need to be a jerk. A simple character doesn't mean a simple and non-engaging player. It can in fact be just the opposite. The simple character allows some players to become more engaged with the game. If you have not experienced that, well I just feel sorry for you.

 

[Horwath]

No need to be a jerk. A simple character doesn't mean a simple and non-engaging player. It can in fact be just the opposite. The simple character allows some players to become more engaged with the game. If you have not experienced that, well I just feel sorry for you.

I believe that @Vaalingrade comment was a jab aimed and WotC dev's explaining to us that 1st level subclass and feats could be "overwhelming" for new players, so any interesting choice should be delayed for 3 or 4 levels so players feel "comfortable" with the game.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I like the idea of the sidekick classes from Tasha's being turned into a proper set of 'simple classes' for people who want something more streamlined and easy to learn.

That way classes like the fighter can be moved away from being super basic.

 

[Horwath]

I like the idea of the sidekick classes from Tasha's being turned into a proper set of 'simple classes' for people who want something more streamlined and easy to learn.

That way classes like the fighter can be moved away from being super basic.

That is the general idea with this.

 

[Laurefindel]

I would imagine the requirement to have to review and select 9 different feats would be a stumbling block for some people's beliefs that this warrior was "simpler".

When you'd really need to do would be to just assign specific ones as ASIs, and the other ones as feats already chosen by the Warrior class. So the Warrior gets Skilled at 2nd level, ASI at 4th, Toughness at 6th, ASI at 8th etc. so the player has to make no choices and everything is written and handed out to them. But in truth even that many abilities are probably too much.

But it's the same reason the simple Caster would not have a spell list, but instead just be given the spells that the playtest has assigned to the classes via their quick creation. You want to be a simple caster... you get these X spells at Y level, no changes or questions asked.

I would echo @DEFCON 1 ’s comment: in my experience, feats are a huge bottleneck in complexity of a character, both for new players and experienced ones. Once chosen, most are very simple to play but 90% of character optimisation outside of spells is done through feats. There are many feats available at low level and they can’t be changed overnight like prepared spells, so pressure to choose the right one is high, and there’s a lot or reading and system analysis to do in order to make an informed decision. This is especially true in classes where feats do all the heavy lifting and there aren’t many other class features to fallback to. And even if you’re not interested in building an efficient character, it’s still several pages worth of text to read to take your first feat. So you turn to your buddy who then tells you what feat to take.

Ironically, choosing feats becomes a lot easier as you gain levels. If the «target audience» for this class is new players or experienced players who don’t want to make their life difficult, I don’t think you’ve succeeded.

If hard-coding feats at set levels is too rigid, I’d suggest offering a choice between two. Something like «you gain one of [this feat] or [this feat], or one unchosen feat from previous levels».

 

[Horwath]

I would echo @DEFCON 1 ’s comment: in my experience, feats are a huge bottleneck in complexity of a character, both for new players and experienced ones. Once chosen, most are very simple to play but 90% of character optimisation outside of spells is done through feats. There are many feats available at low level and they can’t be changed overnight like prepared spells, so pressure to choose the right one is high, and there’s a lot or reading and system analysis to do in order to make an informed decision. This is especially true in classes where feats do all the heavy lifting and there aren’t many other class features to fallback to. And even if you’re not interested in building an efficient character, it’s still several pages worth of text to read to take your first feat. So you turn to your buddy who then tells you what feat to take.

Ironically, choosing feats becomes a lot easier as you gain levels. If the «target audience» for this class is new players or experienced players who don’t want to make their life difficult, I don’t think you’ve succeeded.

If hard-coding feats at set levels is too rigid, I’d suggest offering a choice between two. Something like «you gain one of [this feat] or [this feat], or one unchosen feat from previous levels».

I always seen it as a good idea to allow to change feats, especially for new players. Even experienced players cannot see in advance how god or bad a feat is until it's played for a session or two or several combats.

With mentioned Skilled, we can clearly see upgrade of in Skill expert feat.
Skilled is bad feat, Skill expert is better designed as it gives floating +1 ASI. When you can boost your "17" to "18" at 4th level and still get some flavor with it, that is a good feat.

That is why I consider Telekinetic best designed feat in the game. Not most powerful.
It gives +1 ASI, it gives some combat potential and it gives great flavor RP/exploration tool.

We need more feats like Telekinetic.

 

[Faolyn]

Choosing a fighting style and looking to see if a natural 19 is rolled is probably too complicated for the theoretical 'simple' players we're trying to protect from having to engage with the game.

You joke, but I know a woman who is, apparently, a very good roleplayer (I know her, but I haven't gamed with her; my friend was running a game for her) but couldn't even remember how to run a champion fighter.

 

[Horwath]

You joke, but I know a woman who is, apparently, a very good roleplayer (I know her, but I haven't gamed with her; my friend was running a game for her) but couldn't even remember how to run a champion fighter.

I do not want make some false assumptions, but this to me looks like complete lack of any effort to read the PHB for relevant material for your character or respect for your DM that has 10× or more things to do for your gaming session.

In one campaign that we played, we had a new player, she was very optimistic with her character making, we were 5th level with extra 1st level feat(as most popular house rule), she made tiefling aberrant mind sorcerer with Fey touched and Shadow touched feats.
5th level caster with 7 cantrips and 18 spells known.

now, this was a mistake, even said from her side, but she did muddle through few session before catching up with all the mechanics and deciding what spell to use when and where, but that had to be most newbie-unfriendly character I have ever seen.
If a new player can "handle" that kind of character with moderate success, anyone can play Champion to perfection with minimum of effort.

 

[Faolyn]

I do not want make some false assumptions, but this to me looks like complete lack of any effort to read the PHB for relevant material for your character or respect for your DM that has 10× or more things to do for your gaming session.

That could be the case. I don't know her very well--she's more a friend of a friend; I've only met her a few times in person--but I do know she's an avid LARPer and she always seemed like a decent person. So this could be because she didn't care about 5e, or because she has some sort of weird block when it comes to TTRPGs that she doesn't have when it comes to LARPS, or because she only cares about pure RP and not about rules.

 

[TwoSix]

That could be the case. I don't know her very well--she's more a friend of a friend; I've only met her a few times in person--but I do know she's an avid LARPer and she always seemed like a decent person. So this could be because she didn't care about 5e, or because she has some sort of weird block when it comes to TTRPGs that she doesn't have when it comes to LARPS, or because she only cares about pure RP and not about rules.

Some people are just bad at rules. They make a good effort, they care at the table, they engage; but they just never quite make that jump to where the rules become intuitive. I've had several of them over the years.

 

[NotAYakk]

Feats are not "low complexity". Feats are deciding that the player gets to solve the complexity problem.

5e (and D&DOne) presumes a roughly linear power curve (well, affine not linear). This class
1. Has multiple fighting styles. The 2nd fighting style is worse than the first.
2. Has multiplicative crit and attack count features.
3. Has a whole pile of player-config in that half of its features are bonus feats.

In baseline 5e, with that many feats you run out of boosting your main combo, and you boost secondary stuff, by the end of T2. But this has feats all through T3 and T4.

Unless you got really lucky, the "sub-linear" and "super-linear" stuff ain't gonna balance out well.

 

[Horwath]

Feats are not "low complexity". Feats are deciding that the player gets to solve the complexity problem.

5e (and D&DOne) presumes a roughly linear power curve (well, affine not linear). This class
1. Has multiple fighting styles. The 2nd fighting style is worse than the first.
2. Has multiplicative crit and attack count features.
3. Has a whole pile of player-config in that half of its features are bonus feats.

In baseline 5e, with that many feats you run out of boosting your main combo, and you boost secondary stuff, by the end of T2. But this has feats all through T3 and T4.

Unless you got really lucky, the "sub-linear" and "super-linear" stuff ain't gonna balance out well.

You can always limit the selection to "simple" feats or just take level 1 feats or +2 ASI.

Having more feats in all 4 tiers gives opportunity later on to take "cool" feats that would not be your 1st choice or boost secondary and tertiary ability to 20.