D&D 5E Why Don't We Simplify 5e?

[Umbran]

I'm still of the opinion that the game would be a much simpler exercise for new recruits if subclasses were not assumed/required.

You can get that effect if, for each class, you simply take one subclass to be the default - which is what the Basic Rules do.

 

[Umbran]

A person who finds 5e too complex is going to have greater problems in life to worry about than 5e.

Mod Note:
Yeah, insulting folks does not make you seem like a wise and knowledgeable gamer. It comes across as really petty. So, next time, please resist the urge. Thanks.

 

[Eubani]

If 5e is any further simplified it will start causing problems in the game. This is already showing in areas such as weapons/armour and exploration. A streamlined game is good an over simplified game is not.

 

[mrpopstar]

You can get that effect if, for each class, you simply take one subclass to be the default - which is what the Basic Rules do.

True, and I agree it's a reasonable approach, but there's a part of me that would love to see how the game plays without subclasses as a core/basic experience.

I'm aware there's a general sentiment that classes like the cleric are hollow shells without their subclass, but they would maintain spellcasting, channel divinity (turn undead), ability score improvement, destroy undead, and divine intervention; all of which comprise your basic Dungeons & Dragons cleric.

There would be fewer spells and features for the novice to manage. To us that feels wholly underwhelming, but to someone who's never played D&D, it might be far (far!) less intimidating.

If 5e is any further simplified it will start causing problems in the game. This is already showing in areas such as weapons/armour and exploration. A streamlined game is good an over simplified game is not.

What problems are showing in the areas of weapons/armor and exploration?

 

[Eubani]

Weapons and armour for many classes present the illusion of choice. In regards to exploration class abilities and spells that interact with it end up largely voiding that pillar.

 

[mrpopstar]

Weapons and armour for many classes present the illusion of choice. In regards to exploration class abilities and spells that interact with it end up largely voiding that pillar.

What do you mean by illusion of choice? That weapons and armors aren't all that different?

I do agree that class abilities and spells reduce some of the more obvious challenges of exploration, but many of those challenges would be wholly unsatisfying ends as a heroic character.

 

[Aldarc]

If 5e is any further simplified it will start causing problems in the game. This is already showing in areas such as weapons/armour and exploration. A streamlined game is good an over simplified game is not.

Do we really need weapon and/or armor tables or variable weapon damages? For example, some OSR games opt for class-based damage die.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'm aware there's a general sentiment that classes like the cleric are hollow shells without their subclass, but they would maintain spellcasting, channel divinity (turn undead), ability score improvement, destroy undead, and divine intervention; all of which comprise your basic Dungeons & Dragons cleric.

I think it would be quite easy to do without archetypes:

• Cleric still get to choose 1 domain from which they gain only the extra spell list and the special channel divinity.
• Wizards get to choose one school from which scribed spells cost less.
• Basic's Druid (land) dont gain much anyway from the archetype. I'd probably just merge moon's shapeshifting in the base class.
• Bard archetypes dont add much anyway. Maybe give them medium armors to start with.
• Sorcerer...now that's one class where archetypes matters. There was the Reckless Spellcasting feature from the Invention Wizard UA that could be put in the base class + origin-based extra spell list.
• Barbarian base class is already well done.
• Rogue are a-ok without their archetypes.
• Fighters would be bland as hell but doable.
• Rangers would need a little buff, probably add either a few of the Monster Slayer or Hunter's to the base class.
• Paladin can work well without their oath feature. Maybe use the Devotion Channel divinity and capstone in the base class.
• Warlocks would be like the cleric: pick one extra-spells list and one Boon. Make some patron features (Dark One's Luck, Misty Escape, etc) as patron-specific Invocations.

 

[mrpopstar]

I think it would be quite easy to do without archetypes:

• Cleric still get to choose 1 domain from which they gain only the extra spell list and the special channel divinity.
• Wizards get to choose one school from which scribed spells cost less.
• Basic's Druid (land) dont gain much anyway from the archetype. I'd probably just merge moon's shapeshifting in the base class.
• Bard archetypes dont add much anyway. Maybe give them medium armors to start with.
• Sorcerer...now that's one class where archetypes matters. There was the Reckless Spellcasting feature from the Invention Wizard UA that could be put in the base class + origin-based extra spell list.
• Barbarian base class is already well done.
• Rogue are a-ok without their archetypes.
• Fighters would be bland as hell but doable.
• Rangers would need a little buff, probably add either a few of the Monster Slayer or Hunter's to the base class.
• Paladin can work well without their oath feature. Maybe use the Devotion Channel divinity and capstone in the base class.
• Warlocks would be like the cleric: pick one extra-spells list and one Boon. Make some patron features (Dark One's Luck, Misty Escape, etc) as patron-specific Invocations.

I like some of these proposals!

I'm not wholly against subclasses as a rule, just wish the game functioned without them in the core three books. Maybe add them in a player's option or "advanced" expansion that compliments the PHB, DMG, MM.

 

[Cadence]

I like some of these proposals!

I'm not wholly against subclasses as a rule, just wish the game functioned without them in the core three books. Maybe add them in a player's option or "advanced" expansion that compliments the PHB, DMG, MM.

Don't the DnD Basic Rules that are free on-line essentially not have sub-classes (since they have only one for each class)?

If a lot of players like the extra complexity it feels odd to me to make them buy a 4th book to get it, when there is a less complex version available for free.