D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[Parmandur]

So, this thread seems to be quickly spiralling downward, so I figure what's the harm.

Ever since the first post about general releases and wanting more classes, I've been wracking my brain for what those classes could be.

Psionics is obvious, and potentially things like the 4e Battlemind or Ardent could be subclasses in this.

Warlord is probably on people's lists

Artificer could work as a wizard, but I could see them getting their own class.


And... that's about all I can think of that couldn't get covered by subclasses.


Now, the list could include rules for prestige classes and Epic destinies (I honestly loved that concept in 4e) but, I can't come up with enough things to fill a full book, let alone multiples. I'm relatively new to DnD, so what are the classes that everyone is pining away for that are going to fill multiple releases?

[MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] has been pretty upfront that the Warlord is destined for subclass status, and that the only full Classes on the horizon are Artificers, Mystics and neo-Rangers. Other than that, we are likely to see any new full Class ideas that may arise vetted in UA publically first, just to be sure people like them. Subclasses are where the design work is at.

 

[Corwin]

As someone who plays most of his games in the FR, there were FR books I didn't buy. I never intended to ever run a campaign in Chult or the Hordelands for instance, so I didn't bother to get any books on those areas.

You claim I don't give "good faith responses", yet you will basically emulate my words? I mean, I even specifically referenced Chult while pointing out that FR campaigns probably won't use source material that doesn't impact the area they are playing in. What a coincidence. Does that mean what you just said here was not a "good faith response" either?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Corwin]

And on average, someone running an FR campaign AND someone running a homebrew campaign are both likely to find use with a general content book. Classes, magic items, feats, etc. can all be fit into drow campaigns, sword coast campaigns, Greyhawk campaigns, Dark Sun campaigns, and homebrew campaign #1,#2, #3...all the way to #1,000,000 and more.

That's not necessarily true. I get that you want it to be. But the problem is, you keep dodging the question of what "general content" even is. You've been asked multiple times, by multiple posters, for an example. And you can't provide one. Not one.

You say "general content" is equally as likely to be used by FR players as homebrew. But what if that "general content thingy" is already being represented by something else that already exists in FR?

Jim: "Guys. Check out this generic content material book I picked up. There's a section on an unnamed circle of vaguely evil wizard-like badguys that rule their nebulously described region with generic dark magic and unspecified cruelty. They could make perfect villains in our upcoming FR Aglarond campaign."
Bill: "You mean they are basically the Red Wizards of Thay?"
Jim: "I guess so. Hmmm. Nevermind."

 

[hawkeyefan]

People love to misuse the laugh button and use it to mock a post. You'll see certain repeat offenders here.

Pretty sure it has the same impact as if they clicked XP, so you can at least enjoy that little bit of irony when folks do that.

So, this thread seems to be quickly spiralling downward, so I figure what's the harm.

Ever since the first post about general releases and wanting more classes, I've been wracking my brain for what those classes could be.

Psionics is obvious, and potentially things like the 4e Battlemind or Ardent could be subclasses in this.

Warlord is probably on people's lists

Artificer could work as a wizard, but I could see them getting their own class.


And... that's about all I can think of that couldn't get covered by subclasses.


Now, the list could include rules for prestige classes and Epic destinies (I honestly loved that concept in 4e) but, I can't come up with enough things to fill a full book, let alone multiples. I'm relatively new to DnD, so what are the classes that everyone is pining away for that are going to fill multiple releases?

As [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION] said, the Warlord is likely to be a subclass, which makes sense. Honestly, I think subclasses were designed to address any such need, preventing the creation of additional classes. The mystic/psion does indeed seem the most likely option. Other than that, there aren't a whole lot of areas I can think of that need a class. Not any concepts that can't easily be done as subclasses instead.

 

[delericho]

That's not necessarily true. I get that you want it to be. But the problem is, you keep dodging the question of what "general content" even is. You've been asked multiple times, by multiple posters, for an example. And you can't provide one. Not one.

No. He gave nine.

Want another nice, easy example of an actual product full of general material that I, for one, would like to see for 5e: 3e's "Unearthed Arcana". During the development of 5e, WotC talked at some length about building a modular game that was easily customisable for different tastes. Well, UA represents one really good way to do that, so that's a product I would like from them.

You say "general content" is equally as likely to be used by FR players as homebrew. But what if that "general content thingy" is already being represented by something else that already exists in FR?

Jim: "Guys. Check out this generic content material book I picked up. There's a section on an unnamed circle of vaguely evil wizard-like badguys that rule their nebulously described region with generic dark magic and unspecified cruelty. They could make perfect villains in our upcoming FR Aglarond campaign."
Bill: "You mean they are basically the Red Wizards of Thay?"
Jim: "I guess so. Hmmm. Nevermind."

What you've described there is bad 'general' content. Funnily enough, nobody particularly wants bad content from WotC, whether it's general or setting specific.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[delericho]

It's hard to speak in absolutes. I'm sure there are people who would love bad content from WotC!

Paizo.
Certain people who enjoy starting doom threads.
Aficionados of the Forest Oracle.
etc.

Sigh. Fair enough, I suppose. After all, every rule has an exception.

 

[Corwin]

No. He gave nine.

No. No he did not. He gave "categories", not examples. The list he gave covers what we find in the three core books (PHB, DMG, MM). Yet even *those* books are chock full of specific setting references. So not even they qualify by his standards.

I'm still waiting for examples.

Want another nice, easy example of an actual product full of general material that I, for one, would like to see for 5e: 3e's "Unearthed Arcana". During the development of 5e, WotC talked at some length about building a modular game that was easily customisable for different tastes. Well, UA represents one really good way to do that, so that's a product I would like from them.

Even the UA offerings thus far have had lots of setting specific references. So still not sure what is meant by "general content".

What you've described there is bad 'general' content. Funnily enough, nobody particularly wants bad content from WotC, whether it's general or setting specific.

Your subjective, agenda-based opinion is duly noted. I request you please refrain from trying to present such things as fact. Appreciated.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No. He gave nine.

(New classes, sub-classes, races, skills, feats, magic items, equipment, optional rules, monsters, and so on.)

But, I believe what Corwin is getting at is that those are incredibly broad, and actually at least a few of them overlap.

For example, new skills.

What new skills are you going to add to the game? What could you even add? Breaking old skills apart into new skills is going to fall under optional rules. And adding something like "Streetwise" (which is one I miss in particular) is... a paragraph at best? And splits skills over two seperate books instead of the one section in the PHB.

New classes:

I know I haven't gotten a lot of response yet to my question on this, but so far no one has been able to provide more than 3 classes


What kind of new equipment could we need?


And, honestly, Volo's guide which keeps being dismissed as too FR to count includes a lot of general monsters and races that you can add to your game. But, they don't count because it is Volo's guide instead of Monster Manual II, so... what we need 1 book of general content?

We're discussing a massive flood of content, a 200-300 page book a year for multiple years, and yet I see maybe a book or two of content possible in this and to some extent, it is getting covered in the AP's and the like, maybe in a few years WoTC will release an AP encyclopedia taking all that general content from the AP's and placing it in a single book.