Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 8376435" data-attributes="member: 1465">I mostly agree with the sentiment that 5e is simpler than other editions and RPGs, but I am also disappointed by trite suggestions to "just play Fighter" as a way to simplify the game. It is horrible as a player to be told that essentially you are still too stupid to play a major character type, as in "play for a few years and then perhaps you'll join our club of real players". Because that is essentially the message received.To answer your concerns, first of all keep in mind that many online discussions on house rules are brought up by people who might be spending more time on planning/theorycrafting than actually playing the game... talking about house rules which complicate the game is usually more rewarding. But in practical experience, you are more likely to encounter a DM who cuts corners at the table to keep the game going. DMs in general are always simplifying here and there for the sake of not getting bogged down while playing.All in all I think 5e has been simplified in the mechanics compared to the previous editions. There are still areas of the game that feel complicated perhaps to follow the sirens of "realism", for example death & dying rules or multiclassing requirements. They could have been worse, but they also could have been simpler without losing anything truly important.Where I always said 5e failed a bit to deliver is class complexity. They started boldly by designing a Fighter option that was really low-complexity (Champion), but they didn't really follow up with similar ideas for all classes. There are still a few classes where a beginner player has to face more complexity than necessary, mainly because there is no low-complexity subclass option. A generalist Wizard subclass with passive abilities/bonuses for example would help a lot, considering that "Wizard" as a character archetype is simple to understand and very popular among beginners (many may not immediately understand what is a Warlock or a Cleric or a Druid and so on... but even toddlers have an idea of what a Wizard is!).Beyond that, it would have also helped a lot to have some sidebars in the Player's Handbook to highlight "safe" choices for beginners, not just what subclass but also what spells or abilities are easier to manage. One of my absolute favourite things of 3e Player's Handbook was the class starting packages: for each class they gave you a ready-made selection of features, spells, skills and equipment. With some care, these picks could really strive for minimum complexity and maybe also try to be "iconic" for beginners. Unfortunately 5e PHB and neither the Basic Rules document have this (although they still indicate starting equipment).From the other side of the screen, complexity can still be driven down a lot by the DM, but you don't even need to think in terms of house rules... it's more about restraining from presenting too many options upfront to the players and instead wait for their initiative. For example, rather than telling them about all the possible actions in combat, just wait until someone asks if they can grapple or disarm someone, and only then tell them how to do it.</blockquote>

Verification