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

[delericho]

Like the 3e UA? That's easy: The 5e DMG already did that. Or was there something else you wanted to point out about the 3e UA that the 5e DMG isn't representing?

The DMG includes a few such options, but there's a hell of a lot more that could be covered.

Are you sure? I don't believe that.

Yes. Once you include every class for every version of the game, including those published by TSR in Dragon magazine, you're into the hundreds of classes. There's no doubt that many of those were worthless dross, but not all.

 

[Corwin]

The DMG includes a few such options, but there's a hell of a lot more that could be covered.

Are there? Like what?

Yes. Once you include every class for every version of the game, including those published by TSR in Dragon magazine, you're into the hundreds of classes. There's no doubt that many of those were worthless dross, but not all.

That's not what you actually said though, now is it?

 

[delericho]

That's not what you actually said though, now is it?

Yes, pretty much exactly: There have been hundreds of classes in the history of D&D, many of which haven't been covered for 5e.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes. Once you include every class for every version of the game, including those published by TSR in Dragon magazine, you're into the hundreds of classes. There's no doubt that many of those were worthless dross, but not all.

I had great fun playing the death master, bounty hunter, and duelist when they came out. The archer was WAY OP though lol.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes, pretty much exactly: There have been hundreds of classes in the history of D&D, many of which haven't been covered for 5e.

Between published 5e materials and UA, I think 95% or greater of all D&D classes have been covered though. They aren't perfect matches of course, because that would be impossible, but the theme and general function is there. And if 95% or more classes from a 40 year window can be ported over on some level to a game that's 2 years old, that's pretty darn good IMO.

 

[Corwin]

Yes, pretty much exactly: There have been hundreds of classes in the history of D&D, many of which haven't been covered for 5e.

Bolded above. Again, you keep waffling between making two different points. I cast doubt on this one quoted above. Not the one you made in the last post.

 

[delericho]

Bolded above. Again, you keep waffling between making two different points. I cast doubt on this one quoted above. Not the one you made in the last post.

Then you should have said as much. In any event, since we won't agree on what 'many' means, we're done here.

 

[delericho]

Between published 5e materials and UA, I think 95% or greater of all D&D classes have been covered though.

We might well quibble over how well some of those classes are covered, we'd probably quibble over what constitutes 'many' classes not being covered. Where we'd probably find more common ground is over the desirability of some of the missing classes.

As it happens, I don't have any burning desire to see lots of classes added to the game - I have a list of about half a dozen specific examples (some setting-specific) that I'd like to see, but that's it. However, the request was for examples, so I gave some.

 

[Corwin]

Then you should have said as much.

???

In any event, since we won't agree on what 'many' means, we're done here.

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] seems to question your choice of words as well. Maybe it isn't 'us'. Maybe consider what it is you are attempting to portray, as your opinion, and use words that better represent it? When I read your point, I very much got the impression you were trying to convey the belief that 5e has a long way to go to represent the kinds of characters that have been possible in previous editions. I (and evidently Sacrosanct) seem to think the vast majority are doable already. After only a few years into 5e. And we think that's great.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As it happens, I don't have any burning desire to see lots of classes added to the game - I have a list of about half a dozen specific examples (some setting-specific) that I'd like to see, but that's it. However, the request was for examples, so I gave some.

I"m not going to disagree with whether or not you provided examples. In fact, I think that's kinda moot to the overall point anyway, even if that's what you were asked directly. And I agree, there are some classes I really enjoyed that don't really exist yet (like the blade dancer from Dark Sun's Complete book of Gladiators). I just happen to think that we have to really keep in mind what the design philosophy of 5e is. This isn't directed at you specifically, but in general. 5e uses a different ruleset, so we can't compare our favorite classes from say 4e and think we need a 5e class that does the exact same thing. Look at the (in)famous warlord. When you go back and look at a lot of those threads where people gave what they wanted (a true port from 4e), you ended up with a class that pretty much had all the benefits of a fighter AND a paladin. So we need to keep in mind the chassis in which classes are built in 5e. Luckily, IMO anyway, 5e does a great job allowing me to customize that chassis to get pretty close to the theme I want. And at the very least, I can always just work with my DM to fine tune anything not already covered via class/subclass/feat/background