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

[delericho]

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.

Leaving aside the specific classes I'm looking for (which, as it happens, includes a Warlord), there's also the question of sub-classes. Reading through the PHB, I was struck repeatedly by the thought that "ah, this is the bit where they'll add more sub-classes in the inevitable splatbook." Followed, of course, by the thought that they're not doing splatbooks (not sure that's a bad thing, anyway).

And it sure would be nice to see several more sub-classes, especially for those classes that only have a couple in the PHB. (Most specifically, the Bard - I've now seen both Bard subclasses used in play, due to quirk of the group of PCs in my last campaign.) I'm happy for WotC to decide what those subclasses should be; I'd just like to see some.

Again, I'm not asking for bloat, and it's entirely possible that the upcoming Big Book of Mechanics will hit the spot exactly. It's a statement of something I would like, not a demand that WotC deliver exactly what I want, exactly when I want it, and absolutely nothing else.

 

[jayoungr]

And it sure would be nice to see several more sub-classes, especially for those classes that only have a couple in the PHB. (Most specifically, the Bard - I've now seen both Bard subclasses used in play, due to quirk of the group of PCs in my last campaign.) I'm happy for WotC to decide what those subclasses should be; I'd just like to see some.

As you may know, they have had a couple of extra bard colleges in UA. Maybe one or both of those will make it to the upcoming BBOS (Big Book of Splat) in official form.

 

[delericho]

As you may know, they have had a couple of extra bard colleges in UA. Maybe one or both of those will make it to the upcoming BBOS (Big Book of Splat) in official form.

Actually, I'd missed that. Thanks for the heads' up!

 

[Corwin]

I've been playtesting the College of Swords. Its got a couple little oddities that I feel could be tweaked a bit. But still fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

By it's own standards - it's own understandable, even laudable, slow pace of releases, particularly release of crunch - yes, it'll probably be a number of years before it gets there. They could probably get there a lot faster, but it'd be quite the big book 'o crunch to do it, a PH2 sort of undertaking. I wouldn't expect that.

 

[Corwin]

But how do you, the "We need more classes!" crowd, reconcile the fact that 5e has provided more distinct character classes/builds/archetypes/whatever than the various editions of the past, within the same number of start-up years?

Isn't this all really just a case of insatiable appetite?

 

[Tony Vargas]

But how do you, the "We need more classes!" crowd, reconcile the fact that 5e has provided more distinct character classes/builds/archetypes/whatever than the various editions of the past, within the same number of start-up years?

There's no need to resort to a statement like that to defend 5e, nor do I feel any need to go into what would be a very unfair (to 5e) comparison.

5e doesn't release material at the same pace as the more player-option-prolific editions did, it's much slower (and for good reasons that are proving out quite convincingly, IMHO). It's over 2 years since the PH dropped, but in terms of number of supplements or sheer quantity of player-option crunch, it's only months into it's run by the standards of a 3e or 4e, let alone a PF.

And, yes, it is presenting more options by those standards, and, as a 'big tent' edition, it /needs/ to. It needs to not just present more options than any one edition did a few months in, it needs to present a range of options that embraces all of them combined. It's still working towards presenting every possibility that all past PH1s collectively delivered.

It has a "long way to go" - in years, only because of the (on balance, desirable) slow pace of release - to get there. But there's no reason to think it can't get there. Even though there are naysayers who seem to want very much for it to fail in that regard.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Leaving aside the specific classes I'm looking for (which, as it happens, includes a Warlord), there's also the question of sub-classes. Reading through the PHB, I was struck repeatedly by the thought that "ah, this is the bit where they'll add more sub-classes in the inevitable splatbook." Followed, of course, by the thought that they're not doing splatbooks (not sure that's a bad thing, anyway).

And it sure would be nice to see several more sub-classes, especially for those classes that only have a couple in the PHB. (Most specifically, the Bard - I've now seen both Bard subclasses used in play, due to quirk of the group of PCs in my last campaign.) I'm happy for WotC to decide what those subclasses should be; I'd just like to see some.

Again, I'm not asking for bloat, and it's entirely possible that the upcoming Big Book of Mechanics will hit the spot exactly. It's a statement of something I would like, not a demand that WotC deliver exactly what I want, exactly when I want it, and absolutely nothing else.

5e has a much narrower release schedule for material officially from WoTC, but I imagine at some point there will be an additional thing that is PHB2-ish in the future. Volo's guide is essentially a MM2, and is being received extremely well so far. So I would not be surprised to see a Volo's Guide to the Exotic Adventurer, or something like that. Where it's presented as him explaining the exotic professions he's ran across in his travels. I know it would be harder to do that, since balancing classes/subclasses is more complex than balancing monsters.

I would totally buy something like that.

 

[Corwin]

There's no need to resort to a statement like that to defend 5e, nor do I feel any need to go into what would be a very unfair (to 5e) comparison.

5e doesn't release material at the same pace as the more player-option-prolific editions did, it's much slower (and for good reasons that are proving out quite convincingly, IMHO). It's over 2 years since the PH dropped, but in terms of number of supplements or sheer quantity of player-option crunch, it's only months into it's run by the standards of a 3e or 4e, let alone a PF.

And, yes, it is presenting more options by those standards, and, as a 'big tent' edition, it /needs/ to. It needs to not just present more options than any one edition did a few months in, it needs to present a range of options that embraces all of them combined. It's still working towards presenting every possibility that all past PH1s collectively delivered.

It has a "long way to go" - in years, only because of the (on balance, desirable) slow pace of release - to get there. But there's no reason to think it can't get there. Even though there are naysayers who seem to want very much for it to fail in that regard.

But that misses my point. Although you danced around it a bit there in the middle. Previous editions *required* a bunch of subsequent splat books just to get to a point where 5e started. So expecting the same number of books is backwards thinking. Instead, rejoice in the knowledge that you don't have to go out and pick up a ton of product. It's all baked into the core book(s). You have a bunch of that equivalent splat already.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But that misses my point. Although you danced around it a bit there in the middle. Previous editions *required* a bunch of subsequent splat books just to get to a point where 5e started. So expecting the same number of books is backwards thinking. Instead, rejoice in the knowledge that you don't have to go out and pick up a ton of product. It's all baked into the core book(s). You have a bunch of that equivalent splat already.

I'm not just talking about number of books but range of options. There are characters you might have played in 1e or 3e or 4e the moment the PH dropped that aren't yet mechanically supported in 5e - in some cases, (such as MoonSongs complaints about the Sorcerer) in a fuzzy sense of not well-enough supported, in others not at all.

As far as numbers of books and pace of releases go, I think my defense of 5e is entirely valid.