D&D 5E What does 5E NEED

[Gnarl45]

You said you needed "...more feats and subclasses to flesh out the most common archetypes." I assumed that was your point since that's what you actually said. And if we're talking about the most common archetypes, then 5e does that already. From your other statements, it seems that what you actually meant was that you wanted more feats and subclasses to fill your niche and/or highly specialized concepts. You can hardly blame me (or others) for missing the point when your point was something different than what you actually wrote.

It's a matter of perspective. What you call niche/highly specialized concepts, I call common archetypes. What you call a suitable ways of making them, I call incomplete solutions.

If I really think about it, what I'm really missing in 5e are a generic skill monkey class and a generic magic-user subclass. The fighter for exemple has two generic subclasses: the champion and the battlemaster. I can use those for any character concept that knows how to fight. Now if you take the rogue, it's a different story. The rogue has sneak attack as a class feature. That gives him a dirty fighter/assassin feel that you can't avoid. The wizard's problem is that you have to play a specialist.

Addressing your actual point, my suggestion would be to not hold your breath. 5e is not going to be like 3e with a ton of specialized feats and classes. It's not designed to be so. I for one would not want to see the feat/class bloat that plagued 3.x in 5e. And I have a suspicion that WoTC isn't going to take a business model where they put out all that material either. Splatbooks and fluff for small pockets of gamers isn't something I see them putting out any more. What I do see?

An Adventure Path that includes another variant of sorcerer, possibly a psionist, and additional specialties for clerics. And that's about it.

Did you get this information in an official announcement or are you making this up?

And I'm not asking for bloat. I'm asking for a rogue that isn't a dirty fighter and a magic-user that isn't a specialist. You know, generic building blocks that you can use to make pretty much any character you can imagine. I didn't like the 3e/4e option bloat any more than you did. I don't think a sneak attack variant or a generalist wizard subclass are too much to ask.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I really don't think that rangers who can't cast spells, or rogues that don't have sneak attack are common. I think they are very much in the minority. And I don't think this is a subjective thing like you're claiming. I think it's very objective by looking at the history and default builds of both classes over the past several decades.

And the point I'm trying to make, is that if a person wants WoTC to create a class/subclass to fill these very rare variations, don't hold your breath. Especially since you can make these variations pretty easy within the existing 5e rules. It's already been announced that they won't put out splatbook treadmills like in previous editions.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I think the game is pretty complete as is myself. I'll be fine with just three core books and some adventures.

 

[Gnarl45]

I really don't think that rangers who can't cast spells, or rogues that don't have sneak attack are common.

Aragorn and Legolas for the rangers. Bilbo for rogue.

And how about Driztt Do'Urden? It's been a while since I haven't read a Drizzt book but I don't recall him casting a whole lot of spells.

And that's just rangers and rogues. Mike Mearls himself qualifies the D&D fighter as the 100% combat class. Think about all your fantasy fighter references, how many of them can do more than just fighting? There is simply no way in 5e to trade some of that combat percentage for non-combat without getting spells or sneak attack or some other flavor-inducing mechanic.

And you conviniently avoided the generalist wizard. There's a whole lot of those in D&D litterature alone.

I think they are very much in the minority. And I don't think this is a subjective thing like you're claiming. I think it's very objective by looking at the history and default builds of both classes over the past several decades.

And the point I'm trying to make, is that if a person wants WoTC to create a class/subclass to fill these very rare variations, don't hold your breath. Especially since you can make these variations pretty easy within the existing 5e rules. It's already been announced that they won't put out splatbook treadmills like in previous editions.

Can you name a single ranger that casts spells? I only have Arwen.

As for the rogue. The only backstabbing rogue I can remember is the rogue in Conan the barbarian. There's a great scene where he hides behind the stairs and slits one of the bad guy's throats. That's the only one I remember.

If those are as common as you say, you should be able to name dozens more, right?

And about those game options. Once again, unless you have some WoTC information that I don't, you're only speculating. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[SteveC]

This is a really interesting question. For me, Fifth Edition is not likely to be my go-to game, and that's largely because there's not enough of it there. I'm looking for:

Expansions to all of the classes, but primarily the martial classes. I'm coming from the perspective of martial characters who have tons of options in combat. Not just basic attacks. For spell casters, the a lot of the options just aren't there, and I find myself coming back to a shockingly small group of spells.

I also find that many of the class options don't seem to be fully developed or supported yet to the point where there are enough options to make the class interesting. Obviously this is just my opinion.

Second I want expansions to the other two pillars of adventure (social and exploration) to the point where there's a full game there involving each pillar. I also want options for all of the characters in each pillar. What a great idea it was to break out the different parts of the game! I was hoping that we'd see class features called out for all of the classes for each of the different parts of the game, but no luck here.

Finally backgrounds. Backgrounds are interesting, but there just aren't enough of them, and there aren't backgrounds for a lot of different types of campaigns.

When I say D&D isn't likely to be my go-to system, it's because with the release schedule, I'm not likely to get any of this, so D&D becomes a game I'll gladly play, but not something that I'll be making my go-to game for.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Aragorn and Legolas for the rangers. Bilbo for rogue.

And how about Driztt Do'Urden? It's been a while since I haven't read a Drizzt book but I don't recall him casting a whole lot of spells.

And that's just rangers and rogues. Mike Mearls himself qualifies the D&D fighter as the 100% combat class. Think about all your fantasy fighter references, how many of them can do more than just fighting? There is simply no way in 5e to trade some of that combat percentage for non-combat without getting spells or sneak attack or some other flavor-inducing mechanic.

And you conviniently avoided the generalist wizard. There's a whole lot of those in D&D litterature alone.



Can you name a single ranger that casts spells? I only have Arwen.

As for the rogue. The only backstabbing rogue I can remember is the rogue in Conan the barbarian. There's a great scene where he hides behind the stairs and slits one of the bad guy's throats. That's the only one I remember.

If those are as common as you say, you should be able to name dozens more, right?

And about those game options. Once again, unless you have some WoTC information that I don't, you're only speculating. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

Ah I see. Your problem is you're conflating "D&D archetypes" with "literature characters." The two aren't the same. If you're expecting D&D to be able to emulate any popular character from fantasy literature near perfectly, then you're in for disappointment. D&D has never been that.

Oh, and ANY wizard can be a generalist wizard, if that's how you want to play them. None of the specialty wizards in 5e prevent you from gaining access to any of the wizard spells to my knowledge.

 

[MoonSong]

Ah I see. Your problem is you're conflating "D&D archetypes" with "literature characters." The two aren't the same. If you're expecting D&D to be able to emulate any popular character from fantasy literature near perfectly, then you're in for disappointment. D&D has never been that.

But weren't rangers introduced because of Aragorn, thieves for Bilbo, Barbarians for Conan and monk because of Kung-fu? why is the door suddenly closed to new popular characters?

 

[Sacrosanct]

But weren't rangers introduced because of Aragorn, thieves for Bilbo, Barbarians for Conan and monk because of Kung-fu? why is the door suddenly closed to new popular characters?

Short answer? No. Go look up Appendix N. There was a TON of stuff there, all which helped inspire D&D. Then Gygax designed those classes within the D&D context--not to copy a figure out of a particular book.

 

[Gnarl45]

Ah I see. Your problem is you're conflating "D&D archetypes" with "literature characters." The two aren't the same. If you're expecting D&D to be able to emulate any popular character from fantasy literature near perfectly, then you're in for disappointment. D&D has never been that.

Oh, and ANY wizard can be a generalist wizard, if that's how you want to play them. None of the specialty wizards in 5e prevent you from gaining access to any of the wizard spells to my knowledge.

I'm not conflating anything. One of my exemples out of three was not a D&D archetype but literature character (arguably 2 out of 3). How could you have missed that? If you don't read the posts and assume things, it's going to be difficult having a conversation. But I don't think you're here to have a conversation. You seem more interested in picking a fight with anyone that wants more options in the game.

 

[77IM]

I think what it needs most of all, then, is a decent licensing paradigm.

THIS.