D&D (2024) Weapon Mastery + Cunning Strike+ Battle Master

[doctorbadwolf]

And Im sure telling people to suck it if they don't want the class concept they like to be forced into being the simplistic class that drags the entire game down is...not?

I at least suggested a way to compromise (by way of escalating complexity for all, and/or building a new role). I didn't just ignore what either side wants and called any dissent gatekeeping.

Adding complexity optionally is easier than removing it optionally.

The people who like the simple fighter and Barbarian like D&D. That they differ from your preference is irrelevant.

 

[Emberashh]

Adding complexity optionally is easier than removing it optionally.

The people who like the simple fighter and Barbarian like D&D. That they differ from your preference is irrelevant.

Hmm yes because clearly for the purposes of your counter argument Im the only person on the planet who has this preference and thus I can be dismissed as a lone nut rather than an echoer of a widely held opinion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hmm yes because clearly for the purposes of your counter argument Im the only person on the planet who has this preference and thus I can be dismissed as a lone nut rather than an echoer of a widely held opinion.

The data suggests it’s a minority preference.

I am also part of the same minority, but I’m never going to back down on defending the simple fighter, because it’s important to a lot of players and is the most popular class.

 

[Emberashh]

The data suggests it’s a minority preference.

I am also part of the same minority, but I’m never going to back down on defending the simple fighter, because it’s important to a lot of players and is the most popular class.

Defending it is one thing.

Arguing it should continue to be what it is is another; the design is putting stress on the game and its popularity doesn't change that.

 

[Scott Christian]

And after a point, we need to face the reality that what some people are actually saying is that they don't want to play DND, and so making sweeping design changes so that those few players can change their minds on what they want to play just means you're trading off on who your audience even is.

I was with you all the way until this. It is not sweeping design choices. The class already exists. Simple and easy.

And, I hate to be this guy, but I'm going to: The same could be just as easily said for those that want complexity. PF is definitely more complex. Perhaps, the complex people should just assign themselves a PF character> This is doubly true when you think of the initial design mantra for 5e - keep it simple.

But I get your point. And as a side note, I have actually had people run monsters before. It's fun. Basically, as DM, I say, do everything in your power to kill them to the monster master. It definitely changes the tone of the players who suddenly feel their PC's might actually die. Yet, even though that was fun, it is definitely something that works best in small doses, like bosses and/or intelligent antagonists.

 

[Shardstone]

Acknowledging that people shouldn't be forcing themselves to play something they don't actually like (and as such shouldn't be forcing the game to change to the detriment of others) isn't gatekeeping.

One does not have to play DND, and they especially don't when they clearly don't like it. It is not gatekeeping to offer the practical advice to play something else.

And in context of what I said originally, I definitely isn't gatekeeping to suggest a means of playing the same game that isn't going to conflict with other players experiences.

That, after all, is the entire point of chasing after the simple class to begin with, so taking that goal to its logical conclusion, itd actually make more sense to designate a player as the Monsters because then you could set them up a bespoke experience thats as simple as it needs to be and sacrifices nothing on the altar of simplicity.

The problem with chasing the Fighter as the simple class is that its actually the Martials that are treated as the simple classes, and how Fighter itself is designed plays into why that is. This is part and parcel to why the martial/caster disparity is such a huge problem and it obviously is negatively affecting large swathes of the playerbase.

A better overall solution is to do escalating complexity for all classes rather than dumping piles of it at once with little to no consistent design philosophy. And if thats still too complex, theres my idea about the Monster Master.

And after a point, we need to face the reality that what some people are actually saying is that they don't want to play DND, and so making sweeping design changes so that those few players can change their minds on what they want to play just means you're trading off on who your audience even is.

A punk band might be inclined to go pop to sell more records, but punk fans aren't gatekeeping when that decision negatively affects their enjoyment of the bands efforts.

I think a better idea is to scrap simple classes and give casual players a stat block for their PC that gains a feat on level up, with predefined feat trees that they can modify if they want to get less casual.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Defending it is one thing.

Arguing it should continue to be what it is is another; the design is putting stress on the game and its popularity doesn't change that.

I see no evidence of that beyond a small number of people on forums who don’t like that the fighter is simple and won’t accept complex subclasses as an answer.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think a better idea is to scrap simple classes and give casual players a stat block for their PC that gains a feat on level up, with predefined feat trees that they can modify if they want to get less casual.

I don’t understand why it bothers y’all so much to have a simple class in the game. There are 12 other official classes, and even Fighters can be complex via subclass.

 

[Horwath]

I don’t understand why it bothers y’all so much to have a simple class in the game. There are 12 other official classes, and even Fighters can be complex via subclass.

Fighters should be more complex, as in battlemaster should be core class feature for fighter.

If someone wants a simple class, then Bear totem Barbarian is great for that(add in even the psychic damage resistance so you do not need to think about that even).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Fighters should be more complex, as in battlemaster should be core class feature for fighter.

If someone wants a simple class, then Bear totem Barbarian is great for that(add in even the psychic damage resistance so you do not need to think about that even).

No. The Fighter should not be “Battlemaster as core class feature” complex. lord come on.

The Barbarian isn’t the thematically malleable “hero guy” class, and Totem isn’t actually that simple.

The fighter should have a few more ways to use Action Surge and Second Wind, Indomitableshouldbe much broader, and maybe the ability at level 5+ to trade an attack to do a bigger thing.

Maybe the DMG optional combat actions could be hard coded into the fighter. That’s about the level of additional complexity that I’d be happy to see in a playtest document.

Or as optional features. I even suggested in a past thread that fighters could get pbta style Moves, but I won’t ever support the base class having specific maneuvers like the Battlemaster.

I’d be just as happy with a much simpler boost to the fighter via more proficiencies and the ability to burn existing limited resources to turn failure into success on any one check.

But there’s an upper complexity limit, and it’s lower than the complexity of any spellcaster, or the monk.