Most Complex Class to build or play

[Ardantis]

I've only played 5e a few times, but I'm starting to get a feel for how the characters work in build and in play. I'm finding that some classes are more complex to build, while others are more complex to play.

For examples;

My Bladelock was very complex to build because he has spells, skills, abilities, and invocations, each of which seems to open up more options or things which need to be tracked. However, his playstyle is very simple. I have two spell slots at my level, so I generally open with Hex, then try to take advantage of the bonus damage from Hex through Eldritch Blast, Scorching Ray, or melee combat.

My Rogue was simple to build- his background (Noble) was more complicated than his abilities, which were all very straightforward and didn't do all kinds of different things. His playstyle, however, was very complex because he had to hunt down advantage to get sneak attack on opponents via his one attack and he was slightly squishy.

Which classes do you find most complex to build, and which do you find most complex to play? Are they the same class, or different classes?

[Demonic Spoon]

It's fairly simple to build, but to play, I'd say the Land Druid beats out everyone else.

Land druids have 3 major things going for them, all of which have a good deal of complexity to use to their fullest

1. Wildshape. Wildshape for them is a utility feature that needs to be used creatively. Especially at low levels before you can just fly around, getting the most out of Wildshape relies on thinkin about all your available forms and how they might help you.

2. Summoning. Depending on whether you're using the new clarified Sage Advice rules or the old "druid picks exactly what they want", this can get pretty complicated. It's less so with Sage Advice (you just throw some CR X creatures onto the field and maybe mention to your DM if you need something specific), but otherwise you need to dig through tons of creature stat blocks and understand them fully.

3. AoE control - things like entangle, spike growth, or wall of fire. These things aren't incredibly easy to target, and typically require more thought to use right.


Aside from a couple things like Chain Lightning, druids lack extremely direct, straightforward options like the fighter's I hit it with my sword or the wizard's I hit it with my fireball

[MrStabby]

I had a Champion/Assassin that was sometimes difficult to play. Working out the best way to get advantage/sneak attack, how many attacks left justified using shove, positioning myself so I minimised using cunning action to disengage. Wondering if I should maximise my damage or maximise damage of team mates. Wondering if I should stab people or grapple people...

Do I charge in without support to tank or hold back and shoot? Will the casters fireball? Do I try and get in there to get enemies to cluster round me or am I too low on hitpoints to risk it? Do
push past the front line taking attacks to try and kill the wizard or try and kill the meat-shield first?

[strangebloke]

After 3.5 all of the builds feel so easy.

Hardest builds are the palladin/bard or palladin/bladelock builds, in my opinion. Of course, that's as much a problem with multiclassing as with anything else.

As time goes on, moon druid will get pretty complicated. You build your character around being a bear and that works for a few levels, but then you have to prove that your character can be viable as, say, a walrus, or whatever. As more animals get added it just gets tougher.

Maybe a wizard, just from the perspective of arguing with the DM about what spells are and aren't overpowered?

[Steampunkette]

So far the two hard ones fo me are Rogue and Sorceror.

I always forget to use uncanny dodge and the Sorc focuses on spells and sorcery points while hoping for that wild surge while forgetting all the neat secondary stuff she can do.

[Sigreid]

In my opinion the most complex to play would be the champion fighter. The reason is you don't have any gimme's on your abilities. Want advantage, or to draw and hold agro or anything else? Great! what's your plan as a player to make that happen with no abilities that will force the mob to go along. You have to get clever and use actual tactics instead of depending on a defined ability.

[TheOOB]

Rogue or Wizard IMHO.

Rogue cares the most about action economy, and has to make use of various bonus actions and reactions in order to be effective.

Wizard because everything they do is a consumable resource, the pretty much only cast spells, and have no effectiveness outside of their dwindling resources.

[ThermalSlapShot]

After 3.5 all of the builds feel so easy.

Hardest builds are the palladin/bard or palladin/bladelock builds, in my opinion. Of course, that's as much a problem with multiclassing as with anything else.

As time goes on, moon druid will get pretty complicated. You build your character around being a bear and that works for a few levels, but then you have to prove that your character can be viable as, say, a walrus, or whatever. As more animals get added it just gets tougher.

Maybe a wizard, just from the perspective of arguing with the DM about what spells are and aren't overpowered?

Yeah, even the casters in 5e are simplified compared to 3e and 4e.

I don't see how anyone who isn't new to D&D could ever have an issue with 5e classes. I would really hate to see the heart attack that comes from them looking over 3e/4e builds.



So far the two hard ones fo me are Rogue and Sorceror.

I always forget to use uncanny dodge and the Sorc focuses on spells and sorcery points while hoping for that wild surge while forgetting all the neat secondary stuff she can do.

I don't think *forgetting a class feature* that may be used 1/round constitutes complexity. It certainly doesn't come close to the Druid.


OP

The bar for complexity is way down, like James Cameron is going to go grab his submersible and go fight Randy Newman at the bottom of the ocean level of down.

Relative to older editions of course.

And this is a good thing. However I hope that people don't get tunnel vision and start thinking any of the 5e classes are truly complex and start asking for more and more simplicity. This could be a dangerous road.

[Demonic Spoon]

And this is a good thing. However I hope that people don't get tunnel vision and start thinking any of the 5e classes are truly complex and start asking for more and more simplicity. This could be a dangerous road.

There are classes even in 5e that are overly complex for many players (druid chief among them). As with the 3.5e/4e to 5e transition, future products should strive to be as simple and easy to use as possible while not watering down gameplay. There is no inherent value in something being hard to use.

[Shining Wrath]

I haven't played them all, but I'd say something where you have to manage both melee and casting and bonus actions - Rogue, or Paladin, or Ranger.

[rhouck]

It's fairly simple to build, but to play, I'd say the Land Druid beats out everyone else.

Land druids have 3 major things going for them, all of which have a good deal of complexity to use to their fullest

1. Wildshape. Wildshape for them is a utility feature that needs to be used creatively. Especially at low levels before you can just fly around, getting the most out of Wildshape relies on thinkin about all your available forms and how they might help you.

2. Summoning. Depending on whether you're using the new clarified Sage Advice rules or the old "druid picks exactly what they want", this can get pretty complicated. It's less so with Sage Advice (you just throw some CR X creatures onto the field and maybe mention to your DM if you need something specific), but otherwise you need to dig through tons of creature stat blocks and understand them fully.

3. AoE control - things like entangle, spike growth, or wall of fire. These things aren't incredibly easy to target, and typically require more thought to use right.


Aside from a couple things like Chain Lightning, druids lack extremely direct, straightforward options like the fighter's I hit it with my sword or the wizard's I hit it with my fireball

I'd agree with druid, although I wouldn't limit it just to Land. If anything, Moon can be more difficult because the temptation can be to simply sit wild shaped and burn slots to heal... and thus completely ignoring that you're a full caster. You also have to be more selective with your prepared spells and those you use versus a Land druid, as you don't get Natural Recovery or the specific Circle spells. Even with wild shape, deciding which form is best depends on the combat (do you want high AC and high hp? or is the enemy low AC and you can get away with a damage cannon? do you want to grapple? do you want to fly?)

A druid can do a lot of different things well, but definitely requires knowing a LOT about the game to get the most out of it (particularly with respect to summoning and wild shape). The good news is that, even played poorly, it's still an effective class. It just has a ton of flexibility and potential, but with that comes a lot of complexity.

[ThermalSlapShot]

There are classes even in 5e that are overly complex for many players (druid chief among them). As with the 3.5e/4e to 5e transition, future products should strive to be as simple and easy to use as possible while not watering down gameplay. There is no inherent value in something being hard to use.

Actually I've met plenty of people who prefer 3e based on the fact that 5e feels too easy.

Weird, but whatever.

The current classes may be complex to some players but that doesn't mean they are actually complex.

Just because someone finds Super Mario World to be too complex doesn't mean it itself is a complex game. It is a side scrolling run and jump game.

Would "Space Invaders* be a complex game just because someone found it too complex (compared to say Pong)?

Even the current Druid is in the *not-complex* pile of classes. I would have preferred a 4e/PHB II 3.5 type of Druid (really simple and more based on RP) but they went ahead and took the 3e Druid and made it a bit simpler.

When you look at the complexity of something you need to look outside of your bubble and see how others are doing the same thing. By comparison the 5e Druid is more complex than some druids (4e/PHB 2 3.5/ Unearthed Arcana 3.5) but way less complex than others (3e core, 3e core + splats).

The current Druid could be simplified but then people would freak out like they did with the other simple druids. Other classes, even the wizard, are so dang simple now that if you simplified them more you might as well go to a totally different type of class system. Do more of a generic class system where you have two core classes and you grow your character from there (Warrior and Mage).

3.5 UA had rules for generic characters gaining different class features and stuff.

[Ralanr]

In my opinion the most complex to play would be the champion fighter. The reason is you don't have any gimme's on your abilities. Want advantage, or to draw and hold agro or anything else? Great! what's your plan as a player to make that happen with no abilities that will force the mob to go along. You have to get clever and use actual tactics instead of depending on a defined ability.

Someone is speaking my language.

[TheOOB]

You have to get clever and use actual tactics instead of depending on a defined ability.

That's not fair. Not having defined abilities doesn't make you use any more or less tactics than anyone else, and things like attack, dash, and the like are defined abilities. Just because one mechanic has 3 tools in their box and one has 30 doesn't make the one who makes do with 3 any better as a mechanic, and in many cases it may make them worse.

[Steampunkette]

That's not fair. Not having defined abilities doesn't make you use any more or less tactics than anyone else, and things like attack, dash, and the like are defined abilities. Just because one mechanic has 3 tools in their box and one has 30 doesn't make the one who makes do with 3 any better as a mechanic, and in many cases it may make them worse.

^That.

A Battlemaster Fighter is a far more complex character to play than the Champion Fighter. In addition to tactical combat (which everyone should be playing, essentially) she also has a bevy of other abilities she can pull out based on the party's needs.

The idea that having less tools makes you more complex is just strange, to me.

[MrStabby]

Less complex, but more difficult.

[Ralanr]

Less complex, but more difficult.

That's pretty much the gist of it. With fewer tools you need to broaden your horizons with what you have. The shield becomes a table, my sword a coat rack, etc. In situations where I'm outmatched in pretty much every way I start thinking of how to make the fight more even.

If you are fighting a better swordsman, remove the sword from the picture.

[ThermalSlapShot]

That's not fair. Not having defined abilities doesn't make you use any more or less tactics than anyone else, and things like attack, dash, and the like are defined abilities. Just because one mechanic has 3 tools in their box and one has 30 doesn't make the one who makes do with 3 any better as a mechanic, and in many cases it may make them worse.


^That.

A Battlemaster Fighter isn't far more complex character to play than the Champion Fighter. In addition to tactical combat (which everyone should be playing, essentially) she also has a bevy of other abilities she can pull out based on the party's needs.

The idea that having less tools makes you more complex is just strange, to me.

Well not really.

The BM Fighter isn't all that much more complex than the Champion. Most of the things a BM can do can be done by a Champion, but the Champion needs more actions to complete them.

The BM wants to attack and trip a target. The Champion (either by Feat or extra attack) can Attack + Shove (trip). If anything the BM simplifies the Champion by making all those maneuvers into one action.

The resource mechanic used by the BM is not all that complex. I have literally, literally, seen 8 year olds grasp the concept.

There are a few things that the can do that the Champion can't really do. Menacing Strike, as of now, can't be replicated by a straight Champion. Of course an intimidate check may do it.

Maybe I have a different standard for what I think is complex, but the Champion and Battle Master aren't really all that far apart. Eldritch Knight? Yes, more complicated, but BM? Nope.

Edited

On a scale of 1-10, 1 being Champion and 10 being necromancy wizard, I would rate battlemaster as a 2... Maybe a 3.... Perhaps 2.5? If they got more options of maneuvers to use or could switch them out I would bump them to 3 or 4 solid...

[Ralanr]

Well not really.

The BM Fighter is all that much more complex than the Champion. Most of the things a BM can do can be done by a Champion, but the Champion needs more actions to complete them.

The BM wants to attack and trip a target. The Champion (either by Feat or extra attack) can Attack + Shove (trip). If anything the BM simplifies the Champion by making all those maneuvers into one action.

The resource mechanic used by the BM is not all that complex. I have literally, literally, seen 8 year olds grasp the concept.

There are a few things that the can do that the Champion can't really do. Menacing Strike, as of now, can't be replicated by a straight Champion. Of course an intimidate check may do it.

Maybe I have a different standard for what I think is complex, but the Champion and Battle Master aren't really all that far apart. Eldritch Knight? Yes, more complicated, but BM? Nope.

Edited

On a scale of 1-10, 1 being Champion and 10 being necromancy wizard, I would rate battlemaster as a 2... Maybe a 3.... Perhaps 2.5? If they got more options of maneuvers to use or could switch them out I would bump them to 3 or 4 solid...

For complexity? I completely agree. The two subclasses of fighter are quite simple. They are just more difficult to work with due to their lack of options.

But difficulty is not the topic of this thread.

I'd wager a transmutation wizard or enchantment focused wizard would be the most complex to play. Or s trickiery cleric.

[ThermalSlapShot]

For complexity? I completely agree. The two subclasses of fighter are quite simple. They are just more difficult to work with due to their lack of options.

But difficulty is not the topic of this thread.

I'd wager a transmutation wizard or enchantment focused wizard would be the most complex to play. Or s trickiery cleric.

For complexity sake, having an army of minions that may or may not be able to do different things really bumps up the complexity.

Anytime you play *your PC* + *someone else* things get more complex. This includes any type of summoning, Necromancer just has the potential to get waaaay out of hand.

The cleric is weird. Any cleric can be a 1 - 10, it is the one class that has the most flexibility of how complex it is in game play.

The wizard you have to use your spellbook, you can't get away from that complex issue. The cleric? You can pick exactly what level of complexity that you want. From spirit guardian + spiritual weapon + weapon attacks... To running around using the help action and keeping Spells in reserve for healing.

Yeah the lack of options really hurts the Fighter, well really it isn't the Fighter that's to fault. I blame the base rules and how restrictive they are.

With a more open base set of rules (like I attempted in my link) the Fighter as is gets a lot better. I still need to add more options but I think I'm on the right track.

Essentially... The casters play by the rules but have a lot of "well you can ignore X rule" or "here, make your own rule" cards. The non-casters get a lot of "use the rules harder/more".

If you expand the base rules, but leave monsters where they are now, you make it where a PC can choose their level of complexity. If you want a damage dealing Fighter then you can have the champuon/BM as presented. If you want more options you can have a Champion that is more complex but has essentially the same difficulty of using.

[Ralanr]

Which means beast master ranger is the most complex class of them all.

I'm kinda glad for the lesser amounts of complexity. I get tunnel vision when I'm given too many options (by which I mean I label each option for the situation it calls for and nothing else. So not really tunnel vision I guess but I don't know what to call it).

Some might say my playstyle is seeing everything as a nail and me holding a hammer. I describe it as, "cutting the knot".

[ThermalSlapShot]

Which means beast master ranger is the most complex class of them all.

I'm kinda glad for the lesser amounts of complexity. I get tunnel vision when I'm given too many options (by which I mean I label each option for the situation it calls for and nothing else. So not really tunnel vision I guess but I don't know what to call it).

Some might say my playstyle is seeing everything as a nail and me holding a hammer. I describe it as, "cutting the knot".

Well no, BM gets 1 thing that replaces their actions for the most part and then later acta with them. Summoning different things (DM dependant) and controlling an army of undead make the BMR look like... Well... The Champion.

And that's fine if you get your tunnel vision. But that's what is great about giving many options. You can ignore them. I'm sure when you play a caster, or when you don't actually, you don't pay attention to spells that you don't have access too or just don't like.

If I hate co duration Spells then I'm not going to pay attention to them. Same thing with martials. Don't have the ability scores or don't want to use other options? Don't pay attention to them. The monsters are set up to where you can kill them with DPR if you want via a sharp/pointy/blunty (?) weapon.

Adding options to martials doesn't change anything. You are already ignoring so many Spells and abilities in the game due to not having those options yet or bong able to take them at first level... You can't be a level 1 Warlock and level 1 Fighter and be a level 1 character.

The only way to fix the issue is to stop treating people who play martials as mentally fragile and not able to keep up with ones that play casters. (Not you specifically, but generally this is how wotc and many others treat martial players... Like you can't possibly want a complex martial).

[Ralanr]

My stance on the pathfinder brawler would say otherwise (because of the stupid amount of feats in a feat swapping class provides headaches).

I more or less agree on allowing martials to advance, they are hit with the realism stick too much (D&D stance on realism does not make a balanced crowd).

I've played casters before, so far all I liked was warlock. Bard made me forget if the abuse I could use in my surroundings to set up traps, which saddened me when someone else use it.

[ThermalSlapShot]

My stance on the pathfinder brawler would say otherwise (because of the stupid amount of feats in a feat swapping class provides headaches).

I more or less agree on allowing martials to advance, they are hit with the realism stick too much (D&D stance on realism does not make a balanced crowd).

I've played casters before, so far all I liked was warlock. Bard made me forget if the abuse I could use in my surroundings to set up traps, which saddened me when someone else use it.


The last time I played 3.P the only bralwer I recall being decent/good was the Dragon Mag Brawler. Dragon Mag was made by Paizo before Pathfinder. The PF Fighter was just as atrocious as the 3e Fighter. Though I recall the Lore Warden being nice except that even with Combat Expertise you still needed Int 13 to get the rest of the Feat chain :smallmad: .

I'm not concerned with balance really. I mean, I talk about balance, but my main concern is fairness and fun. A subset of players aren't treated the same as others (if they know it or not) and what is fun about casters (escaping realism) is not given as much to martials.

Specific canpaigns can do what they want, but core rules should be so dang biased.

Balance just happens to be a bit product of what I want, and one of the easiest ways to reach my goal.

[Ralanr]

The last time I played 3.P the only bralwer I recall being decent/good was the Dragon Mag Brawler. Dragon Mag was made by Paizo before Pathfinder. The PF Fighter was just as atrocious as the 3e Fighter. Though I recall the Lore Warden being nice except that even with Combat Expertise you still needed Int 13 to get the rest of the Feat chain :smallmad: .

I'm not concerned with balance really. I mean, I talk about balance, but my main concern is fairness and fun. A subset of players aren't treated the same as others (if they know it or not) and what is fun about casters (escaping realism) is not given as much to martials.

Specific canpaigns can do what they want, but core rules should be so dang biased.

Balance just happens to be a bit product of what I want, and one of the easiest ways to reach my goal.


For me it's about 3 things. Fairness (which is balance really), fun, and not requiring book keeping. The PF Brawler from what I remember basically can switch between combat feats in combat. Feat juggling...

I'm so glad 5e doesn't focus so much on feats.

[ThermalSlapShot]

For me it's about 3 things. Fairness (which is balance really), fun, and not requiring book keeping. The PF Brawler from what I remember basically can switch between combat feats in combat. Feat juggling...

I'm so glad 5e doesn't focus so much on feats.

Most feats could have became base options, much like weapon finesse and two weapon fighting did.

With the way feats work now, Feat juggling I aide combat would be interesting and easier than in 3e. Feat juggling outside combat would be good/great for the Fighter... If the Feat options where better. I'm very disappointed in the Feat selection. Make it per short rest and you might be on to something though.

[Ralanr]

Most feats could have became base options, much like weapon finesse and two weapon fighting did.

With the way feats work now, Feat juggling I aide combat would be interesting and easier than in 3e. Feat juggling outside combat would be good/great for the Fighter... If the Feat options where better. I'm very disappointed in the Feat selection. Make it per short rest and you might be on to something though.

Well feats in 5e are a lot more powerful than the ones in pathfinder (and by extension 3.5).

[Ruslan]

In my opinion the most complex to play would be the champion fighter. The reason is you don't have any gimme's on your abilities. Want advantage, or to draw and hold agro or anything else? Great! what's your plan as a player to make that happen with no abilities that will force the mob to go along. You have to get clever and use actual tactics instead of depending on a defined ability.
Unfortunately, in my experience, the "actual tactics" employed will be, in order:

A. Do something convoluted and artificial
B. Argue with the DM until he breaks down and concedes that this particular convoluted set of circumstances grants you advantage.
C. Upon outarguing the DM, act smug at own creativity.
D. Rinse, repeat.

YMMV, of course.

[Ralanr]

Unfortunately, in my experience, the "actual tactics" employed will be, in order:

A. Do something convoluted and artificial
B. Argue with the DM until he breaks down and concedes that this particular convoluted set of circumstances grants you advantage.
C. Upon outarguing the DM, act smug at own creativity.
D. Rinse, repeat.

YMMV, of course.

SDMMD

Some Dungeon Masters May Differ.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Well feats in 5e are a lot more powerful than the ones in pathfinder (and by extension 3.5).

Relative to each system, yes. However the feats in 5e are mostly garbage.

They are on the right path, sure, but they have major issues. All of which is due to the core rules.

Perhaps the pentacle of feats for martials is the Sentinel/Polearm Master combo, until you realize your OA is 1/round so this super awesome defender lets hordes of goblins or whatever past them like a dang plebeian. And even then you have to wait for the DM to allow you to use your feature (by having a stupid creature attack or try to get past the Polearm dude).

The core rules have small cracks which become larger problems later down the creation.

[Ralanr]

However the feats in 5e are mostly garbage.


Care to give examples beyond sentinel and polearm master? Two-Weapon fighting doesn't count (since it's not the feat's fault, it's the two weapon combat system).

[ThermalSlapShot]

Care to give examples beyond sentinel and polearm master? Two-Weapon fighting doesn't count (since it's not the feat's fault, it's the two weapon combat system).

I don't want to jack this thread so I'll start a thread later tonight and give my opinions on the feats in the PHB.

But for quick reference of feats that should have been base rules... For martials, so they an show that on a base level they are better than others when it comes to being martials.

Athletic, Charger, Defensive Duelist, Duel Wielder, Durable, Grappler, Great Weapon Master (-5/+10), Mobile, Polearm Master (BA 1d4 attack), Savage Attacker, Reailient (everyone, not just maryials. 1 secondary save, str, int, or cha), Sentinel, Sharpshooter (-5/+10), Shield Master (Fighters, paladins, etc), Skilled (everyone, not just martials), and Tavern Brawler.

Other feats are bad or should be broken up/given for free but these are the core martial ones that, because they are horrible feats for specific reasons, hurt martials.

The idea that a martial doesn't know how to charge boggles my mind. Especially one with a background such as soldier or a Barbarian outlander... I mean... Wow...

It's like they made them feats in order to try and shoe horn a level of complexity in order to say "see! The Fighter/Rogue can be complex! They get the most feats and can take the most options!".

[CallMeJefe]

The idea that a martial doesn't know how to charge boggles my mind. Especially one with a background such as soldier or a Barbarian outlander... I mean... Wow...


It's not that they don't know how to charge. Anyone can move up to an opponent and attack them, which can be described however you like. It's that they don't know how to use that momentum to full effect until they take the Charger feat. I played 3.P almost exclusively before starting with 5th edition, so the lack of a defined 'charge action' bugged me, too, at first. I learned to pad some of the generic mechanics with fluff.

[ThermalSlapShot]

It's not that they don't know how to charge. Anyone can move up to an opponent and attack them, which can be described however you like. It's that they don't know how to use that momentum to full effect until they take the Charger feat. I played 3.P almost exclusively before starting with 5th edition, so the lack of a defined 'charge action' bugged me, too, at first. I learned to pad some of the generic mechanics with fluff.


That's exactly what I mean. The so called Fighter or Barbarian doesn't know how to use their momentum to full effect on a charge? Are you kidding me? That is downright insulting to the classes and to the players.

The charger Feat is terrible as a Feat and could easily be part of the core rules for martials.

[Ralanr]

That's exactly what I mean. The so called Fighter or Barbarian doesn't know how to use their momentum to full effect on a charge? Are you kidding me? That is downright insulting to the classes and to the players.

The charger Feat is terrible as a Feat and could easily be part of the core rules for martials.

Tackling isn't as easy as it looks.

[Person_Man]

I think they're all dramatically simpler then 3.X.

But I would say that any optimal build that doesn't rely solely on weapons is going to be complex, because the action economy is complex. Every turn, you can and should be using your Action, Reaction, Bonus Action, Concentration, movement, and non-actions (Action Surge, Metamagic, passive abilities, previously summoned/animated creatures, etc). That's at least six different things to juggle every round.

For this reason, I wish that the Bonus Action and non-actions didn't exist. It would clean up a lot of problems.

[Ralanr]

I think they're all dramatically simpler then 3.X.

But I would say that any optimal build that doesn't rely solely on weapons is going to be complex, because the action economy is complex. Every turn, you can and should be using your Action, Reaction, Bonus Action, Concentration, movement, and non-actions (Action Surge, Metamagic, passive abilities, previously summoned/animated creatures, etc). That's at least six different things to juggle every round.

For this reason, I wish that the Bonus Action and non-actions didn't exist. It would clean up a lot of problems.

Perhaps giving two actons per turn but limiting spell casting to once per turn?

[ThermalSlapShot]

Tackling isn't as easy as it looks.

For us, maybe, but for a fully trained soldier of death? That's like saying a navy seal can't tackle because they aren't specialized NFL player. That's so weird. The navy seal may not be trained in tackling but try to say they can't grab and shove someone to the ground. (Or of course change navy seal to basketball player, they aren't trained in anything like that but they could grab/throw a person to the ground quite easily if they put their mind to it).

If you are going to base martials on realism at least use the best of the best as low level so they can grow into something that looks like fantasy.

[Ralanr]

For us, maybe, but for a fully trained soldier of death? That's like saying a navy seal can't tackle because they aren't specialized NFL player. That's so weird. The navy seal may not be trained in tackling but try to say they can't grab and shove someone to the ground. (Or of course change navy seal to basketball player, they aren't trained in anything like that but they could grab/throw a person to the ground quite easily if they put their mind to it).

If you are going to base martials on realism at least use the best of the best as low level so they can grow into something that looks like fantasy.

The realism argument in D&D is frustrating because D&D doesn't seem to favor where it wants to be in that spectrum. It's very broad and general in an attempt to pander to the biggest audience (which is the biggest complaint for the forgotten realms setting, it's so generic (I'm neutral on the subject due to lack of knowledge and I play in homebrew settings) so it just seems like basic fantasy).

The problem is that this works. It's considered the tabletop rpg to a lot of people. They always keep certain concepts because of tradition, even if the concepts are poorly functioning.

The ability for dwarves and architecture is so specific in 5e that it looks like it makes sense in 3.5.

They keep pushing the half-Orc to use a greataxe or play as a barbarian. Similar with tieflings and warlocks, and Dwarvs and clerics. But at least the dwarf stats can be pretty beneficial to other classes like Druid, warlock, or even a wizard (armor is great!). Ever heard of a dwarven wizard? I haven't and I'm finding the concept awesome! Half-Orc wizard? I haven't and they make brutish wizards that can live long enough to run after getting hit.

Then we have the spell casting system. To their credit they've tried to tone it down and it works pretty well. I love concentration, I hope the concept of it sticks. But they print spells (and splat them if EE is anything to go by) that can be annoying (not targeting EE). I mean, why is wish a thing? Even with its drawback it's still very abusable.

The balance is a bit better. When people use wish in their arguments to say wizard beats fighter, I'm basically being told they need to use their strongest spell and go first (by sheer luck) to beat a guy with a sword.

They pretty much messed up by saying that magic items are rare. What are things you can fill splat books with? Spells, races, class options, and magic items. Since EE had no class options, we just got new races and a whole bunch of spells. And the adventure paths only seem to give more magic items.

Honestly I hate the realism argument within D&D. Because not even Wizards has a solid stand on where it wants to be. Words can literally break bones, and people complain about martials breaking realism. Suspension of disbelief is low for martials.

Though in game I haven't had this problem. Sure my barbarian can't blow up buildings with a few words, but I've pretty much been the reason many of my teammates are not dead.

[Ruslan]

That's exactly what I mean. The so called Fighter or Barbarian doesn't know how to use their momentum to full effect on a charge? Are you kidding me? That is downright insulting to the classes and to the players.
You know what's downright insulting? The sheer amount of minutes I lost of from my life while playing 3.5e and redoing attack calculations each time a player went "oh yeah, I also have +2 because I'm charging". That's insulting. A fiddly little +2 bonus that messes up the flow of the game is insulting. It is insulting in real life sense, mind you, not in the imaginary "oh no, my character can't properly use his momentum to gain a +2 bonus, I am so insulted!" sense.

And those are minutes of my life I'm never going to get back. Luckily, we have 5e now, and with it, the fiddly +2 bonuses are going to finally die a horrible death. Good riddance.

As for the game, your character can still walk up to an enemy and whack them with a sword. Do it. You know you wanna.

Edit: and the charming "wait, he had -2 AC because he charged last round ... so I guess that means ... which AC you hit again?" is another aspect of the game whose departure I am definitely not mourning.

[Ralanr]

You know what's downright insulting? The sheer amount of minutes I lost of from my life while playing 3.5e and redoing attack calculations each time a player went "oh yeah, I also have +2 because I'm charging". That's insulting. A fiddly little +2 bonus that messes up the flow of the game is insulting. It is insulting in real life sense, mind you, not in the imaginary "oh no, my character can't properly use his momentum to gain a +2 bonus, I am so insulted!" sense.

And those are minutes of my life I'm never going to get back. Luckily, we have 5e now, and with it, the fiddly +2 bonuses are going to finally die a horrible death. Good riddance.

As for the game, your character can still walk up to an enemy and whack them with a sword. Do it. You know you wanna.

Edit: and the charming "wait, he had -2 AC because he charged last round ... so I guess that means ... which AC you hit again?" is another aspect of the game whose departure I am definitely not mourning.

I enjoy combat so much more now that I don't have to remember all those small bonuses and penalties. That was a pain.