Recent content by doctorbadwolf

As i am building the "rules quicksheet"s i am refining certain rules that are more complex than they need to be. So far it looks like all the rules thst you need to run a standard "scene" can fit on half a page, with less common stuff like crafting, downtime, ritual magic, resting, on the oyher...

Had you said that, instead of wuibbling about whether or not the fighter or barbarian are simple, id have just disagreed and carried on. I dont think the simple caster needs to be simpler than anything that exists in 5e. I think that is an unreasonable ask for dnd, tbh. I mean, it has to...

And they abandoned dhe former team's solution, putting a properly working service years back. They chose this, and the chose to take years to do anything of value with the service. Ive been using ddb since it was a daring new beta program, and the amiunt of work being done on it has suffered...

So, the rules, not a statblock. Not what the OP askex about in the furst place. Yes, i know. The thing asked about is a statblock. The point of ddb is things like this. The rules of 5e are extremely easy, ddb is useful because it puts everything (in theory) right there on the page, already done...

That is not a statblock. It is not the creature. It is just the feature. No, you cannot. You can pull up the rules, and the statblock template. It is not possible anywhere to actually pull up your primal companion as a complete statblock. A template thst says "AC: 13 plus your wisdom...

Sure, but it also true that the D&D Multiverse is a concept that exists as a framework for all dnd worlds. It's just canon, though. Canon literally never matters.

Yes. in the dropdown for Extras where you can choose the type of extra, there is no option for the primal companion from the phb. In fact, iirc there is no way to get the Beast of The Land as an extra ata all except to make one as a homebrew monster and add it.

If we werent talking about classes purely in rhe context of which should become the simple caster in a hypothetical edition, perhaps. But even then, a complex class and a simple class with complex subclasses are two different things in any context. So the fighter and barb are simple classes.

Not missing anything, wotc just refuses to actually make DDB usable.

Did you forget that this entire thr3ad is about a hypothetical new edition? Subclasses do not determine whether the class is simple. The class does. Period. This derail about subclasses on the existing simple classes (and yes, they hoth do have multiple simple subclasses) is not useful on any...

The class isnt the subclasses. Both classes are simple. Especially when discussing class design, objecting that a class isnt simple because most of its subclasses are complex is a ridiculous distraction from the discussion, at best. (Also IMO false but hey whatever)

Nah. This, imo, is a bunk take. The fighter and barbarian are quite simple. I have never seen a fan of simple characters take issue with either of them, never seen a new playing struggle with them, etc. They easy. Very. A simole caster doesnt need to be "10 page rpg character" simple, just...