Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8364486" data-attributes="member: 7023887">'Cause most of the suggestions that are given that would simplify D&amp;D have been debated to death and are holdovers from previous editions (alignment, racial ASIs, expanding class identity, etc), and 5e is already simplified to the point that new players can get it easily enough (and if for some reason they can't, they can always play a Sidekick from Tasha's or a Survivor from Van Richten's). If you want to play the most simple, mechanically boring character ever, be a non-Variant Human Champion Fighter in a game without Multiclassing or Feats. You'll have one important mechanical choice when creating the character (your Fighting Style), and no others for the rest of the time you play the character. If you want to play the most mechanically-complex character possible at the same table (again, ignoring Feats and Multiclassing), be a Moon Druid (any race would work, but Simic Hybrids are a bit more complicated than most races). IMHO, D&amp;D doesn't really need further simplification. If anything, it needs to do a better job at supporting both mechanically simple and mechanically complex styles of play better (like allowing players to make important mechanical decisions while playing any of the Martial classes). There are very few parts of D&amp;D 5e that I've looked at and said &quot;that needs to be more simple&quot;. They are there, but they are few and far between (I'm looking at you; Four Elements Monk), and most of them boil down to strange Rules as Written (Melee Weapon Attack vs. Attack with a Melee Weapon, Natural Weapon vs. Unarmed Strike vs. Simple Weapon, and the whole &quot;you can cast spells that require S and M components with both hands full if you're holding a spellcasting focus, but not spells that just require S components&quot; issue).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Levistus's_Leviathan, post: 8364486, member: 7023887"] 'Cause most of the suggestions that are given that would simplify D&D have been debated to death and are holdovers from previous editions (alignment, racial ASIs, expanding class identity, etc), and 5e is already simplified to the point that new players can get it easily enough (and if for some reason they can't, they can always play a Sidekick from Tasha's or a Survivor from Van Richten's). If you want to play the most simple, mechanically boring character ever, be a non-Variant Human Champion Fighter in a game without Multiclassing or Feats. You'll have one important mechanical choice when creating the character (your Fighting Style), and no others for the rest of the time you play the character. If you want to play the most mechanically-complex character possible at the same table (again, ignoring Feats and Multiclassing), be a Moon Druid (any race would work, but Simic Hybrids are a bit more complicated than most races). IMHO, D&D doesn't really need further simplification. If anything, it needs to do a better job at supporting both mechanically simple and mechanically complex styles of play better (like allowing players to make important mechanical decisions while playing any of the Martial classes). There are very few parts of D&D 5e that I've looked at and said "that needs to be more simple". They are there, but they are few and far between (I'm looking at you; Four Elements Monk), and most of them boil down to strange Rules as Written (Melee Weapon Attack vs. Attack with a Melee Weapon, Natural Weapon vs. Unarmed Strike vs. Simple Weapon, and the whole "you can cast spells that require S and M components with both hands full if you're holding a spellcasting focus, but not spells that just require S components" issue). [/QUOTE]

Verification