Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6891344" data-attributes="member: 996">One of the downsides of class-based systems is that you can end up choosing things you have no interest in (or even actively don't want), because they happen to be bundled with other things that are vital to the concept.Y'know, 'among' makes that a less meaningful statement.&nbsp; Rolemaster, which, IIRC, is a game you played, has notoriously complex chargen, I'd say much moreso than most versions of D&amp;D, but it and D&amp;D could still be 'among the most complex' systems...OTOH, you can have complexity, but still have relative transparency.&nbsp; Or you can have complexity in chargen, but short-cut it with pre-built defaults or DM-created pregens.Heh.&nbsp; I think the assumption that the Warlock is 'meant' to be a simpler alternative might spring from it's short-rest-recharge mechanics, which it has in common with the poster-boy for simple, the Fighter.&nbsp; It's not /that/ simple.&nbsp; And, of course, it does come up short when measured against the much more complex/versatile wizard, so making it more complex seems like a solution, though to a different problem.&nbsp; :shrug:Doesn't seem like the same point, at all.&nbsp; You have some fans who happen to want more for their favorite game, and some other fans who don't want to see their favorite game criticized, even in what is a fairly constructive way.&nbsp; I get that there's a fair bit of general negativity on-line (if you're happy, you have less need to vent, perhaps), but there's a lot less blatant/persistent negativity towards 5e than towards the prior two editions (really, even compared to the prior 3, for those of us who remember the whole Role v Roll thing on UseNet).&nbsp; By the same token, there should be less impetus for uncritical apologists to jump to its defense when faced with legitimate criticism....Right, and, often, quiet.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6891344, member: 996"] One of the downsides of class-based systems is that you can end up choosing things you have no interest in (or even actively don't want), because they happen to be bundled with other things that are vital to the concept. Y'know, 'among' makes that a less meaningful statement. Rolemaster, which, IIRC, is a game you played, has notoriously complex chargen, I'd say much moreso than most versions of D&D, but it and D&D could still be 'among the most complex' systems... OTOH, you can have complexity, but still have relative transparency. Or you can have complexity in chargen, but short-cut it with pre-built defaults or DM-created pregens. Heh. I think the assumption that the Warlock is 'meant' to be a simpler alternative might spring from it's short-rest-recharge mechanics, which it has in common with the poster-boy for simple, the Fighter. It's not /that/ simple. And, of course, it does come up short when measured against the much more complex/versatile wizard, so making it more complex seems like a solution, though to a different problem. :shrug: Doesn't seem like the same point, at all. You have some fans who happen to want more for their favorite game, and some other fans who don't want to see their favorite game criticized, even in what is a fairly constructive way. I get that there's a fair bit of general negativity on-line (if you're happy, you have less need to vent, perhaps), but there's a lot less blatant/persistent negativity towards 5e than towards the prior two editions (really, even compared to the prior 3, for those of us who remember the whole Role v Roll thing on UseNet). By the same token, there should be less impetus for uncritical apologists to jump to its defense when faced with legitimate criticism.... Right, and, often, quiet. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification