D&D 5E What is balance to you, and why do you care (or don't)?

[Maxperson]

Barbar Smash.

Not simple enough. Even the "simple" totem Barbarian has 3 choices to make from among 3 options each time. 18 different combinations compared to the Champion's 0. It's not terribly complex, but I've played with a number of players who don't want to have to make decisions like that. They just want to write down what they get at a level and move on. The game is in their words, supposed to be relaxing fun, not involve work. D&D is an escape for them and they don't want to have to worry about character creation choices beyond race and class. The Berserker is often more maniacal and mindless in battle than players want. I've seen very few who have wanted to play one over the years due to the fluff and/or mechanics of it.

Plus, as I said, there is no good reason to change(or get rid of) the Champion. It's there for them, not you. You can pick from the other Fighter options or campaign for a new subclass that fits your needs.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not simple enough. Even the "simple" totem Barbarian has 3 choices to make from among 3 options each time. 18 different combinations compared to the Champion's 0. It's not terribly complex, but I've played with a number of players who don't want to have to make decisions like that. They just want to write down what they get at a level and move on. The game is in their words, supposed to be relaxing fun, not involve work.

I don't mind there being a class for them. I HATE WITH THE BURNING FIRE OF A MILLION SUNS that inorder for WotC to give them that class they eat an entire concept and take it from people who Don't want simple...

"hey I want hamburger" that's cool if I can have my steak.
"Hey I want my hamburger and it's unfair if I eat it AND you get a steak" {redacted for family friendly}

Plus, as I said, there is no good reason to change(or get rid of) the Champion. It's there for them, not you. You can pick from the other Fighter options or campaign for a new subclass that fits your needs.

the problem is the chasie doesn't fit both.

this is why I propose 2 classes (the same way a warlock is more simple then a wizard or cleric) I don't care if you call it a warlord or a warblade or a sword sage or a warrior or "anime fun guy" just a class that the fluff is 100% martial and non magic, but has the complexity and power at least close to a full caster.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

The base Barb doesn't really get a lot of choices in terms of what they get, but I guess they do have a little bit more complexity since Rages run out so easily.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The base Barb doesn't really get a lot of choices in terms of what they get, but I guess they do have a little bit more complexity since Rages run out so easily.

I almost think a warlock plays simpler but you have to pick cantrips and spells, but the barbarian is simpler to make but runs more complex(not much still)

 

[Willie the Duck]

okay I will try. ...

Not ignoring this post, just do not have time at the moment to form a sufficient response (Friday is normally the slow work day, not this time). Thanks for shifting tone.

So what would be your simple easy no-thinking-required-to-play class?

Pretty much all of the Barbarian subclasses are fairly simple to play.

Not simple enough.
...
Plus, as I said, there is no good reason to change(or get rid of) the Champion. It's there for them, not you. You can pick from the other Fighter options or campaign for a new subclass that fits your needs.

Just the very nature of Rage makes barbarians less than the kind of simple I think the referenced type of player wants. Having to think out how to keep rage up (especially if the enemies learn to flee or hide or otherwise be non-targetable for a round to make the rage drop) is a complexity right where I think it is most not wanted. Kinda like rogues -- I think a lot of beginners and beer&pretzel players gravitate to the theme, but the specific implementation ends up being a bit of complexity it tactics (both in making sure to get your SA damage whenever possible and to manage your action economy well). IMO, what is actually wanted is pretty much a BX fighter (just lots of hit points and good AC, saves, to-hits, and damage), or maybe some of the MM entries.

In my opinion, it might have been preferable to make this option be a completely separate framework, divorced from fighters (allowing fighters to be more complex in their base chasis). The (alt-)'Champion' could be a separate page, noted as being specifically for this subgroup of games. No multiclassing with other classes, so no issue about 1 level dips or the like. And then just eliminate all the toggles -- not even second wind and action surge or the like (probably still HD to spend, but that's about it). In their place, static effects and high numbers across the board -- D12 or even D20 hd, multiple good saves (maybe proficient in all of them), flat out immunities (no resistances, or chances to shake of or other fidgety methods) to some things (fear being a thematically good choice), decent # of skills if you want to give them some OOC value (but no '1/2 X, roundup'-like things like Jack of all Trades), and maybe some +1 hits/damage/AC at various points.

Presenting it in the PHB in 2014 that way would be a tricky tightrope act, but I think it might have made the design space for both this concept and fighters as a whole a lot easier.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I think for a subclass that has no options whatsoever, their passive stuff should be pretty strong to compensate, but Champion surely ain't it.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't mind there being a class for them. I HATE WITH THE BURNING FIRE OF A MILLION SUNS that inorder for WotC to give them that class they eat an entire concept and take it from people who Don't want simple...

"hey I want hamburger" that's cool if I can have my steak.
"Hey I want my hamburger and it's unfair if I eat it AND you get a steak" {redacted for family friendly}

Can you name a class or subclass that isn't also a concept? I can't. No matter what they choose as their simple class/subclass, that concept is going to be taken from those who like it, but want more complexity.

I don't care if you call it a warlord or a warblade or a sword sage or a warrior or "anime fun guy" just a class that the fluff is 100% martial and non magic, but has the complexity and power at least close to a full caster.

I personally very much dislike the Warlord as a class. That said, I have been advocating for a long time for it to be made for 5e because of how many people liked it. Let the Fighter be. There are Warlords and Warblades or whatever else that can be made for what you want.

 

[Maxperson]

Just the very nature of Rage makes barbarians less than the kind of simple I think the referenced type of player wants. Having to think out how to keep rage up (especially if the enemies learn to flee or hide or otherwise be non-targetable for a round to make the rage drop) is a complexity right where I think it is most not wanted. Kinda like rogues -- I think a lot of beginners and beer&pretzel players gravitate to the theme, but the specific implementation ends up being a bit of complexity it tactics (both in making sure to get your SA damage whenever possible and to manage your action economy well). IMO, what is actually wanted is pretty much a BX fighter (just lots of hit points and good AC, saves, to-hits, and damage), or maybe some of the MM entries.

I agree. A lot of people just want to run up and hit things until they die, and then do it again in the next fight.

In my opinion, it might have been preferable to make this option be a completely separate framework, divorced from fighters (allowing fighters to be more complex in their base chasis). The (alt-)'Champion' could be a separate page, noted as being specifically for this subgroup of games. No multiclassing with other classes, so no issue about 1 level dips or the like. And then just eliminate all the toggles -- not even second wind and action surge or the like (probably still HD to spend, but that's about it). In their place, static effects and high numbers across the board -- D12 or even D20 hd, multiple good saves (maybe proficient in all of them), flat out immunities (no resistances, or chances to shake of or other fidgety methods) to some things (fear being a thematically good choice), decent # of skills if you want to give them some OOC value (but no '1/2 X, roundup'-like things like Jack of all Trades), and maybe some +1 hits/damage/AC at various points.

That probably would have worked, but at this point the ship has sailed.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In my opinion, it might have been preferable to make this option be a completely separate framework, divorced from fighters (allowing fighters to be more complex in their base chasis). The (alt-)'Champion' could be a separate page, noted as being specifically for this subgroup of games. No multiclassing with other classes, so no issue about 1 level dips or the like. And then just eliminate all the toggles -- not even second wind and action surge or the like (probably still HD to spend, but that's about it).

now this idea I like...

give them prof in the 4 most common saves, all weapons and armor, d12s for HD and the fighter # attacks a built in subclass so no choice a built in quisi fighting style +1 to hit with weapons, and reroll 1's on damage dice with weapons then the improved crit chance of the champion...

a fun 1e style fighter. but leaves fighter concepts free for more complexity

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Can you name a class or subclass that isn't also a concept? I can't.

rogue, ranger, wizard, just off the top of my head. now there are concepts in them, but they each have multi and you can pick another class (or background in some cases) and stillplay that concept.

if you want to be 'the magic guy' you can be a sorcerer a wizard a bard a warlock.
if you want to be the 'healer guy' you can be the divine soul sorcerer, the cleric, the druid, the artificer, the bard
if you want to be the tough weapon guy you can choose from classes with magic, or fighter.

infact it gets harder if you just want non magic, you have some subclasses of fighter or rogue (I say monk too but I understand why some disagree)

No matter what they choose as their simple class/subclass, that concept is going to be taken from those who like it, but want more complexity.

then how do we get artificer, sorcerer, warlock and wizard all covering magic guy?

I personally very much dislike the Warlord as a class. That said, I have been advocating for a long time for it to be made for 5e because of how many people liked it. Let the Fighter be. There are Warlords and Warblades or whatever else that can be made for what you want.

that is all I want