D&D (2024) 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.