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

[Maxperson]

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?

Who says the Warlord isn't wide enough for a full class? It hasn't been made yet, but that doesn't mean that it won't be. The Warlord is easily as wide and probably wider as a concept than an Artificer is.

 

[Maxperson]

Why do we need simple at all?

YOU don't. Others do.

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.

I'll ask you now. Who are you to decide what level of engagement is sufficient to play D&D?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Back atcha chief. I'm sure you can point to objective data on the vast multitudes who need the fighter to be the designated training wheel class.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm not. What the Rogue class provides is also a concept. It performs what the "rogues"(Han Solo, Swashbucklers, etc.) you are conflating with the class, cannot provide.

what is it in concept you don't get?

False Equivalences are false. Name one that studies to get their spells from that book.

pact of tomb

Having a book is not at all the same as Wizard magic and doesn't allow them to be wizards.

it covers the same concept though even though it isn't called wizard

They still universally make a pact with patrons and it's the patron that gives them their powers.

and so?

So first, I said nothing about refluffing. Second, yes. It's impossible to refluff a Warlock into a Wizard, since no amount of refluffing the Warlock gets rid of the patron or the patron as the source of the Warlock's power, and no amount of refluffling allows the Warlock to learn spells from the book daily or add new ones to the book from scrolls, other spellbooks, etc.

whaat are you not getting?

 

[Lanefan]

Sidekick classes. Make a healer, thief, warrior, and mage. That way there's a "kid brother button masher" class in every flavor. When people want to learn the game, they can move on to a big boy class.

There has to be a way to say this that isn't quite so demeaning to those who don't want much complexity in their game mechanics.

And to those who are in it mainly for the roleplay side of things and doesn't give a fig about mechanics, what's your response?

If they don't they probably don't care that much about their effectiveness.

This assumes "effectiveness" is the be-all and end-all reason for playing a character.

News flash: it ain't.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Warlock's a caster, right?

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

you pick 3 cantrips... one is almost always eldritch blast. 9/10 of rounds you fire off your pew pew laser

 

[Vaalingrade]

Who are you to decide what level of engagement is sufficient to play D&D?

I feel like 'not zero' isn't a big ask.

 

[James Gasik]

Rangers have always been a weird class in D&D. They don't really have a flavor other than "fighter guy with survival skills with nature themed powers that isn't a Druid".

I mean, in 1e, he was meant to be Aragorn. In 2e and 3.0...he was kind of a joke, with his only saving grace being two weapon fighting and bonuses that only worked against certain enemy types.

3.5 gave him more skills, making him like a Rogue with a better BAB (among other things).

Mostly, and this is telling, 3.x's way to make Rangers better mostly came down to interesting Ranger spells.

The 4e Ranger was a dedicated damage dealer, compared to his warrior kin (Fighter and Paladin, who were defender classes).

The 5e Ranger...man I don't even know. The subclasses are wildly different and the base chassis is like, "stripped down Fighter with more ribbons".

 

[Lanefan]

I think we need to look at this not from the perspective of "I want to turn off my brain and attack" but "new player".

Also "player who is great at roleplay but isn't at all interested in game mechanics and would rather leave all that to the DM".

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

There has to be a way to say this that isn't quite so demeaning to those who don't want much complexity in their game mechanics.

And to those who are in it mainly for the roleplay side of things and doesn't give a fig about mechanics, what's your response?

If someone doesnt want to deal with mechanics and doesn't care about effectiveness, what's the problem with a simple sidekick class again?