I still need more info on what is meant by a "generic splatbook".
Last edited:
D&D 5E Mearl's Book Design Philosophy
- Thread starter Jester David
- Start date
How can we say what we want when Mearls new design philosophy is to do new books in ways that have not been done before.
You might as well ask people what kind of new tomato salsa they want.
Zardnaar
Legend
Something like UA I suppose or maybe a class focused one that is not FR. I don't want a comeplete fighter/rogue etc or even 4 Coplete Arcane/Divine etc type books but a Complete Magic and Complete War type book could be interesting.
They did also promise a tactical module for the 4E fans one would think that wold be a sooner rather than later type thing as if they get that 5 years in it sort of defeats the point.
Even something like Paizos Advanced Players Guide could have a little something for everyone like SCAG and the EEPG just a bit bigger.
Tony Vargas
Legend
*.*
Seriously, though, probably just generic in the sense of 'setting agnostic,' in contrast to SCAG.
And there's one in the DMG, it's just based more on 4e critics' definitions of 'tactical.'
To be flippant: "count squares like in 3e, but backwards for diagonals, and introduce facing." Yeah, my game feels so 4e now. ;P
More to the point, 4e 'tactical combat' wasn't just some rules about squares and movement, it was built on a foundation of combat-oriented Roles, neatly balanced attack powers, balanced/dependable encounter guidelines, and PC vs Monster capabilities tuned typical combats to last long enough for some tactics to actually be developed, applied, and even shift in response to enemy tactics. (Apart from the tuning for typical combats to be 'long,' more than a round or few, and 'not static,' those same elements, were a firm foundation for almost any other style of play, really, though some would require the shakier Skill Challenges & Rituals, too.)
While modules were a nice idea, and there might still be some potential there, the real room for 5e to run like other editions is in how the DM rules in play. I've seen a DM run 5e that felt like 4e. She more or less used 4e rules, to the point of using 4e terms, not as 'house rules,' but as situations came up that 4e didn't handle in the desired way, and she re-did the monsters substantially, and often on the fly, but she did it, and her players had fun with it, for about 8 levels, I think it was. Really, the DM is the only limit on 5e.
Last edited:
Sacrosanct
Legend
"This book is worthless to me."
"Well, what do you want?"
"I'm not paid to tell you."
It's not a difficult question to answer, and is not a trick question.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
I imagine PHB2 and UA from 3.5, PHB2 and PHB3 from 4e, or Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, and Ultimate Classes from Pathfinder. Books of "but wait, there's more!"
(Not a knock, I love all of those books!)
Zardnaar
Legend
The other thing by now is some of 5E warts or coming out as people play the game.
For example there may as well only be two armor type in the game, light and heavy armor and the save system has never been great. This has flow on effects as they messed up some of the classes the beastmaster Ranger being the big one but they missed the boat on the gish concept despite trying at least 3 times in the PHB (Eldritch Knight, Valor Bard, Warlock) and with SCAG as well (Bladesinger).
So they identified that people like a Gish PC but the best Gish in 5E is the Paladin and some of the Clerics which is not really what people think of with Gish.A brief look at whats wrong with each Gish currently (a Magus or Duskblade type charaxcter would be nice).
Eldritch Knight. Fighter casts a handful of spells. Doesn't really get nough of them to go around and is tripping over the action economy anyway but the class is still alright as the fighter chasis is very good. To much fighter not enough wizard and some of the abilites come on deep into the class like cantrip+attack.
Valor Bard. To MAD RAW as you need around 4 good sttas to make it viable and even then you are kind of weak at laying the smack down with a weapon. To much primary spellcaster and you give up a lot vs the Lore Bard. Also not proficient in con saves so trying to use magic to buff yourself like what a Gish should be doing is very risky not that you have any good self buff spells anyway.
Bladelock. Falls victim to MAD like the valor bard , can't use armor so be default you have to for dex based but you kind of need a decent charisma and con as well and you are still squishy. You end up dealing low damage as you can't use a versatile weapon or a shield so you are reliant on hex and getting to level 12 to do alright at laying the beat down. Not proficinet in con saves either so hex can be unreliable.
Bladesinger. Two much wizard, not good enough fighter. Taking this class in effect makes you a bad fighter and a bad spellcaster. At least you have a way of buffing concentration saves like the Paladin.
And all the gish types fall victim to the rules about drawing weapons and casting spells which is compounded by a few of them needing to be MAD and taking warcaster to not suck. And a lot of them do not switch on until level 12-14.
And they whiffed a bit on a few subclasses as well, Sorcerer is heavily loaded towards being a Dragon one with fire, the Berzerker Barbarian has issues along with the Elemental Monk. Some sub classes are so good relative to the others you are almost punishing yourself playing them and some are almost trap options like a melee ranger.
New classes that would be nice Psion and a real Gish (Magus, Duskblade, arcane Paladin).
Subclasses that would be nice. More options for those classes that did not get 3 or more archetypes.
Around a dozen feats would be nice perhaps ones not focusing on great weapons, polearms and bows.
Some of my 3pp stuff helps with this as I have several rangers I can pick from and a Purge Paladin can lob fireballs.
For example there may as well only be two armor type in the game, light and heavy armor and the save system has never been great. This has flow on effects as they messed up some of the classes the beastmaster Ranger being the big one but they missed the boat on the gish concept despite trying at least 3 times in the PHB (Eldritch Knight, Valor Bard, Warlock) and with SCAG as well (Bladesinger).
So they identified that people like a Gish PC but the best Gish in 5E is the Paladin and some of the Clerics which is not really what people think of with Gish.A brief look at whats wrong with each Gish currently (a Magus or Duskblade type charaxcter would be nice).
Eldritch Knight. Fighter casts a handful of spells. Doesn't really get nough of them to go around and is tripping over the action economy anyway but the class is still alright as the fighter chasis is very good. To much fighter not enough wizard and some of the abilites come on deep into the class like cantrip+attack.
Valor Bard. To MAD RAW as you need around 4 good sttas to make it viable and even then you are kind of weak at laying the smack down with a weapon. To much primary spellcaster and you give up a lot vs the Lore Bard. Also not proficient in con saves so trying to use magic to buff yourself like what a Gish should be doing is very risky not that you have any good self buff spells anyway.
Bladelock. Falls victim to MAD like the valor bard , can't use armor so be default you have to for dex based but you kind of need a decent charisma and con as well and you are still squishy. You end up dealing low damage as you can't use a versatile weapon or a shield so you are reliant on hex and getting to level 12 to do alright at laying the beat down. Not proficinet in con saves either so hex can be unreliable.
Bladesinger. Two much wizard, not good enough fighter. Taking this class in effect makes you a bad fighter and a bad spellcaster. At least you have a way of buffing concentration saves like the Paladin.
And all the gish types fall victim to the rules about drawing weapons and casting spells which is compounded by a few of them needing to be MAD and taking warcaster to not suck. And a lot of them do not switch on until level 12-14.
And they whiffed a bit on a few subclasses as well, Sorcerer is heavily loaded towards being a Dragon one with fire, the Berzerker Barbarian has issues along with the Elemental Monk. Some sub classes are so good relative to the others you are almost punishing yourself playing them and some are almost trap options like a melee ranger.
New classes that would be nice Psion and a real Gish (Magus, Duskblade, arcane Paladin).
Subclasses that would be nice. More options for those classes that did not get 3 or more archetypes.
Around a dozen feats would be nice perhaps ones not focusing on great weapons, polearms and bows.
Some of my 3pp stuff helps with this as I have several rangers I can pick from and a Purge Paladin can lob fireballs.
Last edited:
Does anyone believe WotC will, or even should, produce material so shallow it has no real flavor or interconnectivity? Does anyone think they can fill a book with ideas without giving those ideas depth and purpose, such that they will have some degree of associated narrative?
I don't see how. Nor do I want them to. If I see something that doesn't fit the narrative I want, I reflavor it. I don't cry that its been ruined and throw it away. As someone upthread said, you don't *have* to call them Purple Dragon Knights. Just call them "Banerets".
Do we really want the next barbarian subclass to be called: "Alt Barbarian D"?
I don't see how. Nor do I want them to. If I see something that doesn't fit the narrative I want, I reflavor it. I don't cry that its been ruined and throw it away. As someone upthread said, you don't *have* to call them Purple Dragon Knights. Just call them "Banerets".
Do we really want the next barbarian subclass to be called: "Alt Barbarian D"?
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
What does gish mean?
Similar Threads
