Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MuhVerisimilitude" data-source="post: 9494210" data-attributes="member: 7042567">I disagree, but I see your point too.Locked-in complexity: Difficulty can be how easy/hard it is to fix a bad build. Wizard and cleric here are unbeatable. They rely so much on spells and the spells can be changed out easily. Martials are really bad here since pretty much everything they have is fixed so they are very difficult/impossible to fix.Baseline complexity: Difficulty can be how easy/hard it is to reach some kind of baseline of competence. I think good martials like fighters are an example of being good here. It is possible to fumble the build, but it's harder when there are fewer options. I think casters are OK here, especially with help from the GM.Mechanical complexity: How difficult is it to get a good grasp of the class and how much do you need reference other sections of the book. This is where all spell casters go. Lots of spells to look up. Some of this complexity can be avoided if the GM aids class construction.I don't know what to call it, but I also think there should be some kind of type of difficulty to cover classes that are not obvious in what they are actually supposed to do. You can build a passable wizard in D&D by just focusing on blasting, but I think some spells are pitfalls and especially with some classes it might not be obvious what you are actually supposed to be actually doing doing. I think clerics might have issues here, though I admit I haven't played clerics in 5E, I remember them being really weird in 3.5 and PF1 and how you're supposed to play them wasn't obvious. They're casters but they are not blasters, and their power lies in more obscure spells. Everyone knows intuitively what Fireball is good for, but how powerful is Bless really?EB should absolutely be a class feature rather than a spell. It would avoid all these issues.</blockquote>

Verification