Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9484294" data-attributes="member: 6790260">We do not need &quot;simple D&amp;D&quot;, that is, something where absolutely everything is trivially easy.We do, however, benefit immensely from having at least one option of various kinds that is, in fact, dirt-simple basic and obvious.That's why, even though I hate the specific implementation, I don't actually hate the idea of a Champion subclass for Fighter. It's good to have accessible, approachable options that don't require a lot of forethought and foreknowledge. Games are better when they offer BOTH easy, accessible classes AND complex classes that reward mastery.There is no actually simple caster. An actually simple caster would be of comparable complexity to a Champion Fighter. No such thing even remotely exists in 5e. Previous editions have actually offered such things (at the very least, the 4e Elementalist--admittedly, a latecomer, but not decade-plus late!) 5e could have as well. It has not, and at this point, it will not if it hasn't done so already.Stop making this a false dilemma between &quot;absolutely everything is dirt-simple&quot; and &quot;absolutely no spellcaster is dirt-simple.&quot; There are many other options, and one of them is to have at least one spellcasting class that is really simple and straightforward.The &quot;D&amp;D Next&quot; playtest Sorcerer possibly could've been this. Center its mechanics on the Soul of magic you have, so Dragon is a tanky bruiser mage, Shadow is a sneaky lurker mage, Storm is a volatile speedster mage, etc., etc. No slots, minimal prep, possibly even a fixed spell list per Soul source (or fixed + a couple flex options?)--the Champion of spellcasters, as noted. But of course, that wasn't traditional (meaning, it wasn't 3.x), so it got drummed out after only a single packet, never to get even the slightest bit of iteration.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9484294, member: 6790260"] We do not need "simple D&D", that is, something where [I]absolutely everything[/I] is trivially easy. We do, however, benefit immensely from having [I]at least one option[/I] of various kinds that is, in fact, dirt-simple basic and obvious. That's why, even though I hate the specific implementation, I don't actually hate the idea of a Champion subclass for Fighter. It's [I]good[/I] to have accessible, approachable options that don't require a lot of forethought and foreknowledge. Games are better when they offer BOTH easy, accessible classes AND complex classes that reward mastery. There is no actually simple caster. An actually simple caster would be of comparable complexity to a Champion Fighter. No such thing even remotely exists in 5e. Previous editions have actually offered such things (at the very least, the 4e Elementalist--admittedly, a latecomer, but not decade-plus late!) 5e could have as well. It has not, and at this point, it will not if it hasn't done so already. Stop making this a false dilemma between "absolutely everything is dirt-simple" and "absolutely no spellcaster is dirt-simple." There are many other options, and one of them is to have at least one spellcasting class that [I]is[/I] really simple and straightforward. The "D&D Next" playtest Sorcerer possibly could've been this. Center its mechanics on the Soul of magic you have, so Dragon is a tanky bruiser mage, Shadow is a sneaky lurker mage, Storm is a volatile speedster mage, etc., etc. No slots, minimal prep, possibly even a fixed spell list per Soul source (or fixed + a couple flex options?)--the Champion of spellcasters, as noted. But of course, that wasn't [I]traditional[/I] (meaning, it wasn't 3.x), so it got drummed out after only a single packet, never to get even the slightest bit of iteration. [/QUOTE]

Verification