I think new players pick up 5E D&D faster than we think...

[Deathtongue]

I've heard classes like Barbarian and Champion Fighter and even Warlock described as 'newbie friendly' classes because they don't overwhelm new players to the table with additional rules. Fair enough. The thing I've been wondering, though, is if we don't give new players enough credit for picking up a class. It's been my experience both face-to-face and in Discord that even preteens and non-roleplaying parents are able to pick up on most of the important nuances of 5E D&D after a couple of months. Meaning that by around level 5 or so, they're comfortable with the rules to not get tripped up by playing more complicated classes like the Druid and Bard. But meanwhile they're still stuck with a class that still thinks they need to keep it simple.

What's been other peoples' experiences?

[Tanarii]

My experience is advancement is about one level per session until level 4, which IMC could have been a week or could be a month. And that's not even close to enough for a brand new player to learn to play a Wizard or Cleric in 'advance mode'.

In particular long rest full casters overall are an issue, because brand new players either take a long time agonizing over spells, or dump all their spells and then get frustrated with cantrips. Or both.

And don't even get me started on Druids and new players.

Conversely I've found EKs, ATs, Paladins, Rangers, to be new player friendly enough. Even though they get some long rest spell casting.

[LudicSavant]

I've heard classes like Barbarian and Champion Fighter and even Warlock described as 'newbie friendly' classes because they don't overwhelm new players to the table with additional rules. Fair enough. The thing I've been wondering, though, is if we don't give new players enough credit for picking up a class. It's been my experience both face-to-face and in Discord that even preteens and non-roleplaying parents are able to pick up on most of the important nuances of 5E D&D after a couple of months. Meaning that by around level 5 or so, they're comfortable with the rules to not get tripped up by playing more complicated classes like the Druid and Bard. But meanwhile they're still stuck with a class that still thinks they need to keep it simple.

What's been other peoples' experiences?

My experience with learning the (older edition) game was finding a PHB someone accidentally dropped when they visited my house, thoroughly reading the whole thing while waiting for an opportunity to return it to them, and playing a full spellcaster focused on maxing action economy and control out the starting gate without anyone needing to tell me a damn thing to help me do that as my very first character. But I'm apparently weird.

Honestly, I'm grateful for the way I got to learn the game: Simply reading the book front to back with no expectations or preconceptions or anyone telling me anything. I didn't even know what D&D was before I opened the book up.

I think it's less about the player being new and more about the kind of player they are. A Champion might be attractive to someone who plays partly for abnegation (https://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/), for example.

[jmartkdr]

If the player in question has played fantasy games before (WoW, jrpgs, etc) they can usually handle the rules of DnD pretty well with a little effort. Compared to what video games do in terms of combining numbers for differing outputs, DnD is baby stuff.

I've found people having a hard time with the concept of roleplaying much more common, because it's really hard to explain how to do that - you generally just try describing what roleplaying means different ways until they happen to get it, but you can't really explain the mental process of it beyond "you think like someone else."

Usually if someone has a hard time with the rules they're either new to gaming in general or having a hard time grokking how the rules and narrative interact - which is as much about grokking roleplaying as it is a bout rules.

[TheCleverGuy]

Personally, my first character was a Fighter precisely because it seemed like the simplest class to learn. I had planned to go with the Champion subclass, but by the time I hit level 3 I was already for more complexity so I went with Battle Master instead.

I hadn't really played any TTRPG before. My brother had tried to teach me D&D when I was a kid (would have been 3e, in think, or maybe 4e), but I did not get it at all. So jumping into 5e, I was a bit intimidated, but it clicked for me right away.

[False God]

I still find that new people have just as much trouble learning casters as they did in 3.5, there's just less choice lock.

[stoutstien]

Some classes just have more obvious or subtle complexity involved and that doesn't really change with how quickly a player picks up general game mastery.
I found that people who like complex classes like complex classes regardless of how familiar they are with any system.

I think the only problem really arises when someone looks at a class thinking that it's going to be pretty straightforward but isn't but they are really drawn towards the flavor or concept of that class.

[Darc_Vader]

In my experience it depends on how mechanically minded the person is. In my core group of friends I typically play with (for coming up on 3 years now) I have 3 people who grasped the rules pretty quickly and can optimize as well or better than me (not necessarily a great feat, but I digress), and another 2 who still occasionally forget that they have to roll to hit before they can do damage.

[NorthernPhoenix]

If you're entirely new the game can be quite overwhelming, but if you've played RPG video games before, and/or seen or listened to any actual play shows, the barrier to entry drops dramatically.

[MustacheManny]

I agree. I usually DM and had a player that was totally new to DnD (but had read his players guide) and rolled up a druid. He had very few issues and just asked a few questions regarding spell slots and when he got them back. 5e is so player AND DM friendly that there's no problem I've found with acclimating new players.

[Tanarii]

I've found people having a hard time with the concept of roleplaying much more common, because it's really hard to explain how to do that - you generally just try describing what roleplaying means different ways until they happen to get it, but you can't really explain the mental process of it beyond "you think like someone else."
That's really Roleplaying stage two.

Stage one is making decisions for your character in the imaginary environment, stage two is "and you try to make the decisions like them instead of you, where there's a difference."

To be fair to new players, even experiences gamers struggle with this in actual play. We all tend to use mental hooks and tricks to keep us remembering to do it. Falling back to "just you" is (totally unsurprisingly) easy in stressful or exciting moments.

[Warwick]

The thing I've been wondering, though, is if we don't give new players enough credit for picking up a class.

There are new players who will learn the rules by heart before ever sitting down at the table and immediately grasp the complexity of the character they're playing. There are also new players who will never learn the rules and will need to continuously be reminded of not only what their character can do, but how the game works. Most commonly, in my experience, newer players struggle to remember everything a full spellcaster can do and have problems with choice paralysis when they level up and need to pick new spells (compounded by the likelihood that they don't know which ones are trap picks).

Though I do think that the Champion is definitely overkill on simplicity for anyone but the most beer-and-pretzel new player.


And don't even get me started on Druids and new players.


I would be thrilled if you got started on Druids and new players. We have one in our group and they're frequently frustrated by the class.

[Tanarii]

For new players that insist on playing Druids, I usually loan them one of my decks of spellcards until the buy their own. And print out a couple (ie 2) common-use forms for wildshaping in combat.

Moon druids are a powerhouse early on provided there is room for a large creature, and players tend to focus on that nicely. I usually point them at that, and at second level the burden is eased a bit, as theyll stop worrying about spells so much.

Unfortunately that doesnt play so well with the typically too intelligent for their own good and must consider and understand every damn implication of every choice tech and science nerds usually attracted to druids. And wizards. They're not there to play bash things, theyre there to play crawlingly slow hyper-chess.

All my game stores for my campaign were near colleges with a strong science bias. My anecdotal experience.might just be a bit biased. 😏

[Falconcry]

There are also new players who will never learn the rules and will need to continuously be reminded of not only what their character can do, but how the game works.


It really depends on the player I think. I’m in my first real campaign after the occasional one-shot. There is a player in our group that was setup with a wildfire druid. The issue is the player not paying attention, needing to be called on every turn and reminded what we are fighting. I the new player go on to DDB to find what his spells do for him and the “veteran” really slows the game down. Some players just give more of a c$&? to playing constructively.

[Nagog]

I think that 5e is a wonderfully built system due to it's unique blend of complexity and simplicity. The rules are fairly simple and straightforward: However, particularly at later levels and with more complex character builds, it has the potential to tie itself into knots.
That said, D&D (and TTRPGs in general) are commitment games. You get out of D&D what you put into it. If you invest yourself in learning the system and all the creative and expressive things you can do with it, you can build a character or even a world to help you get the enjoyment you want out of playing.
On the other end of that, if you play once a month and spare it no thought between games, you'll likely never understand the system or get more than passive enjoyment out of it.

[Deathtongue]

I think that 5e is a wonderfully built system due to it's unique blend of complexity and simplicity. The rules are fairly simple and straightforward: However, particularly at later levels and with more complex character builds, it has the potential to tie itself into knots.I kind of wonder about that. Compared to 4E D&D and 3E D&D and even 2E D&D, abilities in 5E D&D tend to be almost passively always-on (one of the reasons I don't like the Ranger) or they're gated by the existing action economy. There aren't a lot of selectable 'free' actions in 5E D&D, off-turn actions have very simple triggers, durations are standardized, and special actions like shoving or grappling or skill checks tend to follow a simple formula of 'd20 + ability modifier + relevant bonuses'.

There are some exceptions at very high levels like True Polymorph/Shapechange and Simulacrum, but for the most part 5E D&D grows linearly more complex rather than quadratically more complex like what happens with 2E D&D skills or 4E D&D magic items or 3E D&D everything.

[KorvinStarmast]

I still find that new people have just as much trouble learning casters as they did in 3.5, there's just less choice lock. Yep. Seen the same thing.

e is so player AND DM friendly that there's no problem I've found with acclimating new players. Seen similar.
To be fair to new players, even experiences gamers struggle with this in actual play. Yes.

[airless_wing]

As someone who picked a Druid as their first class, it is something I dissuade new players from starting as. The amount of bookkeeping required is quasi-absurd, plus the role of the class is not immediately apparent. I love them for their versatility, flavor, and tactical necessity, but I'm also one of those RTS-playing people that Tanarii seems to be calling out :smallbiggrin: (I make sure I have my turn planned when it comes up; I'm not one to bog down combats)

I think most other classes are well-defined in style and function to work well from the get-go for new players; most people tend to naturally find the spells that are intriguing and good for them (though there will always be some choices that are later changed), and non-spellcasters seem to quickly realize that they're REALLY good at attacking stuff which becomes their go-to option for combat.

[Pex]

It's not the game; it's the player. I've witnessed one player actively trying to learn as the game is playing, remember what was learned, apply it in further games without asking, and expanding, if slowly, his play experience to try new things. I've witnessed two others asking what dice to roll for the 5th game session in a row and failing to apply class abilities like smiting or sneak attack. I don't mind a new player learning the game, but please learn the game. It's frustrating when they ask the same questions every game session.

[Keravath]

I've found that even some more "experienced" players can have trouble with casters. However, it isn't the class or their features - it is almost exclusively the choice presented by the array of spells combined with the limited resources needed to utilize spells that results in some delays due to analysis.

Each level of every caster class can have something like 20 spells or more to choose from (at least at the the lower levels). Each does specifically different things and are useful in different circumstances. Bards and sorcerers are a bit easier since the analysis tends to happen when the spells are chosen, after that they have handful of choices to select from. On the other hand, wizards, clerics and druids can have a much broader choice that changes from day to day as they prepare different spells.

However, even with only a handful of spells to choose from, players can take more time deciding if it is worth casting a spell, which spell is the "best" choice and what level to cast it at. In addition, unless the player takes the time to read all the spells and imagine the situations where it might be useful, takes a look at which kind of saving throw is required and whether the spell is concentration or not ... the player can end up with a selection of spells that can be good but may be limited ... only one save dominates (easy for a bard who happens to choose only wis save spells) ... all spells are concentration (this means that you might need to choose between continuing your current spell rather than casting another or having only a limited selection of cantrips to choose from ... assuming the player picked at least one damaging cantrip). These are the challenges of the full spell casting classes and it isn't only new players that can have trouble with it.

[Asmotherion]

5e is very easy to learn. someone who has never played a tabletop RPG before can virtually be good at playing 5e in about a week as long as he studies the game mechanics. Evidently some classes are easier to master (spell casting classes are always a bit more complicated the mundane ones because you have to learn how spells interact with each other) but there are significantly less factors to consider then other D&D systems. you have to put an effort to mess up most classes while building an average or even good build is almost intuitive. to provide a simple example building a wizard is still more complicated than a fighter but building a fighter in 3.5E is still more complicated than a wizard in 5e. not only are there much simpler mechanics but 5e is still a relatively young system and doesn't have nearly as much content as older systems.

[Willie the Duck]

I've heard classes like Barbarian and Champion Fighter and even Warlock described as 'newbie friendly' classes because they don't overwhelm new players to the table with additional rules. Fair enough. The thing I've been wondering, though, is if we don't give new players enough credit for picking up a class. It's been my experience both face-to-face and in Discord that even preteens and non-roleplaying parents are able to pick up on most of the important nuances of 5E D&D after a couple of months. Meaning that by around level 5 or so, they're comfortable with the rules to not get tripped up by playing more complicated classes like the Druid and Bard. But meanwhile they're still stuck with a class that still thinks they need to keep it simple.

I think 'by around level 5' is not the necessary metric. 'The first three sessions' seems much more where the simplicity is needed. Those three sessions is where most players now can decide whether they are in or not. When I first started gaming, it was with childhood friends I was going to be spending the afternoon, and someone spent two month's allowance on this new game and by golly we were going to sit down and learn this thing. Nowadays with more connectivity (such that if you don't want to do a given activity with a friend, you will find another way to connect with them), and more entertainment options ('it's raining, may as well play a sit-down game' no longer exists when everyone has entertainment supercomputer in their pocket), there needs to be a way to make sure the first few sessions 'sell' the game.

And for that, there are straightforward classes. 'Here's a guy/girl. They are medieval in a world with monsters and magic. They have swords and armor. Even if you only know how those work to the extent that cartoons have taught you, you can probably figure out how to make them work. Have at it!' is not a bad option for that timeframe. It lets people focus on learning things like turn-order, what is an attribute (and attribute score versus attribute bonus) versus what is a skill versus innate traits like Armor Class, who rolls for what, combat and positioning, rest resources, and the like. If you have to do that on top of (ex.) reading every cantrip- and first-level spells in the cleric spell list and picking which ones you want to memorize for the day (before knowing really how well they will work), then your attention is a little more split.

As to 'still stuck with' classes that are simple, no one is required to keep playing a character. Some classes keep going with the simple motif, and I'm guessing that has more to do with people who like a mechanically simple character (because they like beer and pretzel play, because they are there for the roleplay and extra knobs and levers on the mechanical side just get in the way, or any other reason). If you want a class that starts out simple, and then gets complex as it scales up, well there are options for that as well (paladins, rangers, and EKs come to mind).

What I find annoying is that Rogue and Warlock seem like they would be simple, and good intro characters, but each actually has a level of complexity (warlock at the option-selection points, rogues during play) that I think plenty of newbies would trip over.


Unfortunately that doesnt play so well with the typically too intelligent for their own good and must consider and understand every damn implication of every choice tech and science nerds usually attracted to druids. And wizards. They're not there to play bash things, theyre there to play crawlingly slow hyper-chess.

All my game stores for my campaign were near colleges with a strong science bias. My anecdotal experience.might just be a bit biased. ��

I have a department of 'smart people' (senior programmers and lawyers), and I will say I have seen a trend towards feeling the need to take the complex/'smart' option, even in entertainment choices. If they're having fun, more power to 'em. My actual game group is mostly ex-military (including some very smart people, but with no compulsion to prove themselves through their elfgame playstyle preferences), and the preferred playstyle is much more varied --definitely the place where I first heard (in 3e) 'yes, I know that fireball isn't an optimal spell choice, but I didn't pick a wizard to not play a guy who threw around fireballs'.

[Lupine]

In my experience it depends on how mechanically minded the person is. In my core group of friends I typically play with (for coming up on 3 years now) I have 3 people who grasped the rules pretty quickly and can optimize as well or better than me (not necessarily a great feat, but I digress), and another 2 who still occasionally forget that they have to roll to hit before they can do damage.

Totally this.
A lot of how players are able to get into the system or not depends on how invested in the game they are. I have a player who just started playing D&D about half a month before Quarantine as an AA (I buffed the amount and power of arrows he gets, to make the class better).
That player is already more familiar with the rules then the Hexblade, who has played for a approximately two years, and didn't even know that he could use Hexblade's Curse until two months ago, when I sat him down and went through his character's abilities with him.

It really depends on how interested the player is.

[Warwick]

I love them for their versatility, flavor, and tactical necessity, but I'm also one of those RTS-playing people that Tanarii seems to be calling out :smallbiggrin: (I make sure I have my turn planned when it comes up; I'm not one to bog down combats)


I mean, if people consistently thought ahead while they waited rather than needing a full sitrep when their turn comes up, you could run combats with a party of six space brain wizards and still keep things moving along reasonably quickly.

[ZRN]

I've heard classes like Barbarian and Champion Fighter and even Warlock described as 'newbie friendly' classes because they don't overwhelm new players to the table with additional rules. Fair enough. The thing I've been wondering, though, is if we don't give new players enough credit for picking up a class. It's been my experience both face-to-face and in Discord that even preteens and non-roleplaying parents are able to pick up on most of the important nuances of 5E D&D after a couple of months. Meaning that by around level 5 or so, they're comfortable with the rules to not get tripped up by playing more complicated classes like the Druid and Bard. But meanwhile they're still stuck with a class that still thinks they need to keep it simple.

What's been other peoples' experiences?

You can get an interesting (if not definitive) view of the issue by watching or listening to streamed games with newer players. While there's obviously a lot of "what do I add to this d20?" for every class, the classes that will cause the most issues are spellcasters, and especially druids and clerics who can pull out a new spell every session that they have to learn the details of. As an example, I believe the McElroy brothers (who do the Adventure Zone podcast) specifically said they moved their podcast from D&D to another system because the two spellcasters spent big chunks of time trying to figure out what their spells did, and it was boring to listen to.

Speaking from older personal experience, my first several characters (in 3e) were martial because I found the spell chapter intimidating, and tracking spell slots seemed very tedious. While 5e is obviously better than 3e in this regard, and I no longer dislike playing casters, I can certainly sympathize with someone who wants to try a cool game with friends but doesn't want to sit down beforehand and wade through a hundred pages of special rules (spells).

I also don't buy that there's a real correlation between wanting to RP a sorcerer and wanting to master a bunch of rules; just as there are people who want to play fighters and also want complex abilities and powers, there are people who want to blast bad guys with fire without it feeling like homework. (This has less to do with "new" vs "experienced' players and more with preferred playstyle. There are plenty of people who've play the game for decades but don't give a crap about optimizing spell selection or whatever.)

[GlenSmash!]

I don't think simple options are training wheels for people to move on from. I think they are for people who prefer simple options.

[Tanarii]

, but I'm also one of those RTS-playing people that Tanarii seems to be calling out :smallbiggrin: (I make sure I have my turn planned when it comes up; I'm not one to bog down combats)
Most of my best friends are. I play strategy board games with my personal friends, and oh my god they can over analyze a turn/move. I'd go crazy trying to play D&D with them. :smallamused:

But the real problem isn't people who want to make all the best choices. It's ones that want to have the latest and greatest information before making the choice, and don't start considering their moves until their turn comes up. In some cases it's more frustrating than someone that doesn't pay attention, because at least there's even odds that they'll make a snap judgement when heir turn comes up. Even if it has nothing to do with the current battle situation. :smallbiggrin:

[Grod_The_Giant]

In my experience it depends on how mechanically minded the person is. In my core group of friends I typically play with (for coming up on 3 years now) I have 3 people who grasped the rules pretty quickly and can optimize as well or better than me (not necessarily a great feat, but I digress), and another 2 who still occasionally forget that they have to roll to hit before they can do damage.
This has absolutely been my experience. Take two of the most recent newbies I introduced to RPGs. They're both smart, educated people and great roleplayers, but they could not be more different when it comes to mechanics:

F is a software engineer who joined a relatively new 5e group as a half-orc Barbarian. F took the better part of a year to start consistently remembering their attack and damage bonuses (to say nothing of class features). And that's as what's commonly thought of as a starter build in a starter system.
C is a biology lab tech who joined an Exalted group I was starting up-- no-one else had played the system before, but C's experience with RPGs was limited to listening to a podcast. C not only figured out the rules but started looking in depth at character options and planning future advancement while other people in the group were still trying to grasp core abilities. And Exalted is crunchier than anything else I've played, absolutely including 3.5e D&D.

There are some people who pick up rules quickly, and some people who don't. There are some people who enjoy reading the rulebooks and thinking about their builds between sessions, and there are some who don't. It doesn't have anything to do with how fun they are to have in the group-- both can be great, and both can be infuriating.

[Pex]

Most of my best friends are. I play strategy board games with my personal friends, and oh my god they can over analyze a turn/move. I'd go crazy trying to play D&D with them. :smallamused:

But the real problem isn't people who want to make all the best choices. It's ones that want to have the latest and greatest information before making the choice, and don't start considering their moves until their turn comes up. In some cases it's more frustrating than someone that doesn't pay attention, because at least there's even odds that they'll make a snap judgement when heir turn comes up. Even if it has nothing to do with the current battle situation. :smallbiggrin:

Friends of mine call it analysis paralysis. They're always looking for the best move possible for them that also hurts their opponents and won't let the opponents hurt them in response. Their turn takes forever.

[Deathtongue]

I don't think simple options are training wheels for people to move on from. I think they are for people who prefer simple options.That's kind of what brought up this thread. I think there's a place for people who don't want a lot of complex options. However, the way 5E D&D designs classes is the assumption that people who don't want complex mechanical options do so because they're noobs. When in actuality noobs who would prefer complex mechanical options gravitate towards said options much faster than the game assumes. While people who just want to blast people with fireballs or hit people with swords or heal the party are forced into a small variety of roleplaying archetypes and/or have to do counterintuitive options to get the simplicity they crave, i.e. Sorlock.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I've heard classes like Barbarian and Champion Fighter and even Warlock described as 'newbie friendly' classes because they don't overwhelm new players to the table with additional rules. Fair enough. The thing I've been wondering, though, is if we don't give new players enough credit for picking up a class. It's been my experience both face-to-face and in Discord that even preteens and non-roleplaying parents are able to pick up on most of the important nuances of 5E D&D after a couple of months. Meaning that by around level 5 or so, they're comfortable with the rules to not get tripped up by playing more complicated classes like the Druid and Bard. But meanwhile they're still stuck with a class that still thinks they need to keep it simple.

What's been other peoples' experiences?

Like 4e, 5e was designed to be simpler from the ground up, even the more involved classes are simple enough to learn.

With so many people playing videogames that are way more complicated, I'm not surprised when I see someone pick up a wizard and run with it. They may not know all the rules in the PHB, or the sneaky tricks you can do, but they know their class.

Having "new player" friendly classes is a waste of space. Now, you can have simple options, but they shouldn't be the rule and instead should be the exception.

Also, new players don't want to play classes without cool options.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I picked it up fairly quickly. This is because I can quickly become obsessive about things. I spent hours and hours poring over the PHB and DMG until I had a fairly good understanding of how the game worked. People I've played with... uhhh... not so much. My first actual session was with my family and none of them really liked it much. kudos to my dad who dmed through it with a lot of dedication... but my mum and brother had the... I attack it, what dice do I roll? mentality... (No joke. those words or a variation were used almost every round at least once.) I had to remind my brother how smites worked... so many times.

Friends have been in a sort of a middle ground between the two. My school group don't care for plot, but at least they've got the mechanics pretty well done. (At least for the class and race that they have chosen)

My other group that I run for is a little more shaky on the rules.. but we've only had a few sessions and none of them really have had much oppurtunity to read the rules because I'm one of the few people with actual sourcebooks. (Shrugs).
It's fine coz it works for the most part it works. However I've had to teach everyone I've ever played with how to play... a lot... also I've had to make almost everyone's character sheets for them. But hopefully in a while they'll pick it up.

[patchyman]

It's not the game; it's the player. I've witnessed one player actively trying to learn as the game is playing, remember what was learned, apply it in further games without asking, and expanding, if slowly, his play experience to try new things. I've witnessed two others asking what dice to roll for the 5th game session in a row and failing to apply class abilities like smiting or sneak attack. I don't mind a new player learning the game, but please learn the game. It's frustrating when they ask the same questions every game session.

I tend to put my players into three categories: 1) those who after 6 months still don’t understand that advantage is roll 2d20s, keep the highest;
2) those who can play the game without supervision, but will tend to forget features and abilities that are not used on a regular basis;
3) players who know the rules and have a good handle on their character.

[Willie the Duck]

However, the way 5E D&D designs classes is the assumption that people who don't want complex mechanical options do so because they're noobs.

Can you expand on this? I want to understand how you think 5e does this, and perhaps compare it to a few other systems.

[Sorinth]

It really depends on the person, some people will pick up rules quickly and others after playing for years still can't remember how certain things work.

Spell casters aren't really any more complex then other classes, the difference is simply the volume of information. Reading through each possible spell to know which to take when leveling up can be a pain for new players, and then the character sheet which only lists the name of the spell so you have to remember what it does exactly are the real problems. But both are easily solvable, if leveling up doesn't happen at the game table except for maybe rolling for HP the player has time to go through the spell list and decide which spells to take, and if you use spell cards instead of the standard character sheet it helps a lot.

[Deathtongue]

Can you expand on this? I want to understand how you think 5e does this, and perhaps compare it to a few other systems.D&D only has one subclass that stays relatively simple the entire progression of the game, the Champion Fighter. Classes that start or at least appear simple like the Warlock and the Sorcerer are actually very complex as the game goes on to the point where a well-optimized build and a casual build is quite huge.

This indicates to me that the 5E D&D game designers see simplicity more as a paradigm for new players rather than a player preference that lasts beyond being new to the game.

[Willie the Duck]

D&D only has one subclass that stays relatively simple the entire progression of the game, the Champion Fighter. Classes that start or at least appear simple like the Warlock and the Sorcerer are actually very complex as the game goes on to the point where a well-optimized build and a casual build is quite huge.

I certainly would like to see more classes that are somewhat similar to the Champion model. Maybe a Warlock-esque caster who really is just a EB-spammer and some passive abilities, and a 'rogue' that is kind of a fighter, but with some of the skill benefits of the existing rogue.


This indicates to me that the 5E D&D game designers see simplicity more as a paradigm for new players rather than a player preference that lasts beyond being new to the game.

How? Why? What about that one class (or the absence of others) leads you to this conclusion? I'm not following the thought process.

[Deathtongue]

How? Why? What about that one class (or the absence of others) leads you to this conclusion? I'm not following the thought process.Because if they saw it as a playstyle they wanted to endorse, rather than just a phase people go through, they'd A) make more classes explicitly designed to be played that way and B) spread out this playstyle across more archetypes beyond melee buttkickers.