D&D 5E Should 5e classes be Complicated or Simple?

[DonTadow]

If you only want the same older generation to play the game, then keep the rules as complex as you can. Go Paladium if you have to.

HOwever, if your job is to create a new dnd era, simple is better. It should take more time to make a character in fallout 3 than it is does in 5e, at any level.

Simple foundation with the ability to be as complex as a player decides. If you want to take special abilities from several subclasses, knock it out, they've been balanced against one another. If you want to go classic wizard, it's right there too and there's a template for you to get you started.

 

[MarkChevallier]

It really has to be both, to unify D&D players, doesn't it?

Simple, like old Basic D&D; roll your stats, pick your race/class, dive on in!

Complex, like 2E Skills and Powers or 3E; roll/pick your stats/substats, pick your race/subrace and class/kit, decide on advantages/disadvantages, choose skills and weapon proficiencies, pick a few tricks or feats, dive on in!

Both are appealing; some individuals don't like one or the other, some like both. A game that can do both, especially simultaneously, would have a lot going for it.

I'm loving the idea that 5E could be like this, but I don't think we'll see the Complex side initially.

 

[Nebulous]

What do you think, do you miss classes that are completely different from eachother?

Very much so. I DMed 4e up until about 12th level, and i got absolutely sick of the powers progression. Players would just huddle over their cards, roll some dice, and tell me the damage and condition it inflicted. It got old.

That said, i think 4e has the right idea with some kind of "pool" of class powers, but they need to be different from each other and not so vanilla. If you have every single friggin class dealing damage + daze effect, hell, you don't know what power that is or who did it.

And don't call them powers in 5e. Please.

 

[hanez]

I like the idea of having choices. I think that in the older editions, the simple class was always the fighter, but this wasn't a solution because what if I want to play a simple mage?

I would be happy with, a simple version and a complicated version of each class in the INITIAL book (I dont think you should have to ask your DM to play a traditional wizard)

This could be classes like

Simple Warrior - Warrior from 4e
Simple Mage - Wizard from 4e

Complex warrior - a class something like from Iron heroes
Complex Mage - vancian mage, something like from 3e.

Make a couple more classes, make em multiclassable, give em names and ill buy the book

Edit - it almost seems like the simple warrior was the one from 3e, thats MUCH simpler then the 4e one. I had players who have always played fighters in my campaign that were annoyed at all the fighter powers in 4e so even that wasnt really simple enough.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Simple in core, complex with OPTIONAL splat books.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I would say "simple". I'd rather see complications emerge in systems available to every character equally, or every character of a certain type (such as Arcane Spellcasters as a whole).

That said, I'd argue against the idea that 4E classes are simple, or simple to learn. They're not, at all, and that is one of my big problems with the game. Rather then be summed up by an easily-read core set of abilities, getting an idea for what a 4E class can do involves carefully reading through very long lists of powers and trying to figure out how they work together. It is a time-consuming process.

 

[Naszir]

I will go simple as well for the core but the easier add on would be to put out "Paths" like the Midnight setting did or use "Themes" like 4e.

You can have a Fighter core class that gives you your starting class abilites and then just tack on a Path. A couple of Paths (I guess Essentials is a good way to look at it) could be given in the core book (Knight or Slayer) and then they could come out with more in additional books. Weaponmaster, Marshal, Gladiator would all be additional Paths that the Fighter class can take. Rather than swapping out core class abilities like they did with Martial Power you instead differentiate Fighters with the Paths.

This allows for a variety of Fighters without making the leveling choices overly complex. If they do decide to go with Feats, hopefully there are only a few generic feats that cut across classes or Paths.

 

[Hassassin]

As simple as possible but no simpler.

 

[darkwing]

Simple. Death to ability scores. Let the characters grow in complexity organically (i.e. by the choice you make as you level) don't front load complexity so you have to plan out your character for 20 levels to make sure you get the starting ability scores just right.

 

[Minigiant]

Simple. All the complicated info should come from the aspects of the character outside of class.

The class section should be as long as the race section. With the same level of complexity.

All we need is Info on HP, Weapon and Armor Profiencies, Save progression or bonus, attack progression or bonus, Spell/Prayer/Stance/Maneuver list, and 2 or 3 unique class features.