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

[Lanefan]

warlock

Warlock's a caster, right?

No caster is simple to play straight out of the box.

 

[Maxperson]

if inclusion can not be gatekeeping how does that interact with there '4 base simple classe'? it is still giving some inclusion

I don't know what you mean. There are not 4 base simple classes.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Leaving the gatekeeping there aside, one subclass is not the class. The Battle Master is a complex subclass of Fighter.

It ruins the entire class because we have to keep the entirety of the base class simple for your theoretical potatoes (who I dont think exist in any meaningful numbers!)

You could could add the chamion to the battlemaster and the fighter would still suck and be lame.

 

[Maxperson]

Warlock's a caster, right?

No caster is simple to play straight out of the box.

As casters go, the Warlock is the simple one. It's basically pew-pew! It definitely isn't as simple as the Champion, but it's the basic caster.

 

[Maxperson]

It ruins the entire class because we have to keep the entirety of the base class simple for your theoretical potatoes (who I dont think exist in any meaningful numbers!)

I'm sure you can show me objective proof that it "ruins the entire class." I'm positive that you aren't trying to pass off your personal opinions as something that should eliminate options for a bunch of players.

 

[Undrave]

While other classes can say they are wilderness warriors, scout things, etc., not one of them can fit the Ranger concept. Not a single one. Rangers go beyond those simple tags.

the DnD ranger is only a concept in DnD. The only reason it is still a class is tradition and not much else. If the Warlord is deemed a not wide enough concept for a full class, then why is 'Woodsy guy with a couple spells' a full class?

 

[Lanefan]

At some point we gotta ask ourselves how much more simplified we can make things for people who, frankly, don't seem to care about the game at all.

And the answer is, in many cases, a lot; because oftentimes the reason those people don't care about the game is that they see it as being too complex and-or having too big/steep of a learning curve.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I don't know what you mean. There are not 4 base simple classes.

Which is why they should be made, and free the fighter from carrying this burden.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Guess what? Giving you complicated classes consumes design space in a game where players are "hypersensitive to niches." as well. Why is your niche of "complicated" more important than their niche of "simple?" Especially given that 95%+ of classes/subclasses have been made to cater to you.

Why do we need simple at all? The whole idea of 'simple' seems to be either patronizing new players and assuming they can't learn how to operate Rage, or appeasing people who say they don't want to engage with the game most of the time.

 

[James Gasik]

Hot take: make Subclasses optional. You want a simple character? No Subclass for you!