NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8316871" data-attributes="member: 87792">The solution for the wizard player is to play a warlock - who's both a caster and pretty simple. I see no remote equivalent for fighting types. 4e had the fighter as complex. 3.5 had the Warblade and Crusader (and as far as builds were concerned the Fighter) as complex and the Barbarian as simple. The closest to a complex martial class is the monk.Which just demonstrates the opportunity cost of shove is too high. You can make players make boring decisions with poor rules.The only rules it has is an acrobatics check or fail and by default it provides no bonuses. D&D 5e feels as if it wants to be a cinematic game - but there's neither rules nor guidance to make cinematic stunts work. Swinging on the chandelier is just penalising yourself with no benefit by the RAW and so if the DM puts them in the players are encouraged by the rules to leave them alone.In 4e it worked because (a) flanking was a thing and (b) because because forced movement was everywhere 4e DMs were encouraged to use actually interesting terrain. You made a firepit and someone would be put into it. You made a pit trap and someone was going into it. But because 5e was set to use "theatre of the mind" (while having distances designed for battlemaps) they took away the forced movement. With fewer ways of interacting with the background the backgrounds reverted to green screens as putting in the actual work had a lot less point as you couldn't do as much with it. A brazier it's not worth interacting with or a pool of slime people just walk round as if it was a mud pit is the illusion of there being something cool that might as well just be CGI'd in.</blockquote>

Verification