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

[hawkeyefan]

Not any more than we needed a 5th edition in the first place, no. Not particularly more or less than a bladesinger or battlerager. But, whoever felt they needed it has it, now, and whoever doesn't care can quite safely ignore it.

One book a year like SCAG probably wouldn't do in D&D from bloat in less than 30 years. Making it to the 50th anniversary would probably be fine, though. 10 years of stability as a foundation to whatever big launch they might want to do (movie, VR game, body sculpting, nation-building, cell phone app - who knows how effed up the world will be in 2024) at that point to finally break through into /something/ remotely mainstream.

From a conceptual standpoint the Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Sorcerer, Druid, Bard and Warlock could all be created from just the core 4 classes with sufficient application of re-skinning, MCing, feats & backgrounds (and another generous portion of re-skinning). Your GOO 'warlock' is just a wizard with the hermit background RPing all that lovecraftian stuff while casting the same old wizard spells on the same neo-vancian schedule as every other wizard, because mechanics don't matter. Etc.

It is entirely possible to create a system that lets you build to any concept, without needing new 'classes' or other material. It's been done. It's just not D&D. Soooo not D&D.

Yeah, he was pretty clear abou that, and I think it's a terribly unfair bar to expect 5e to clear. 5e is PH + 1 'splat' (barely) into it's run. That it's two years notwithstanding, that's comparable to 4e PH1 + Manual of the Planes, not the whole run of 4e, which was also little more than 2 years!


It sure seems like 5e classes are designed with the need for such mechanical distinctiveness in mind.

I think it's the idea of where a "class" comes from in the first place. They seem to mostly be based on archetypes found in fiction. The possible exception to this, at least initially, is clerics. Yes there are priestly types found in fiction, but their role as healers in the game is purely a mechanical aspect.

So, is it better to base a class around some archetype, or around some mechanical need or desire in the game space? A blend of the two seems the most likely answer, but if we had to pick, my choice would be the archetype.

And yes, I agree that many of the classes could be folded into others, such as the ranger and barbarian being types of fighters. I'm not saying they should do that, but they could have. I don't even think it would be that difficult. But the thing about those classes is that they are also based on clear archetypes within fiction. So while I could understand if they were folded into the Fighter, I also understand why they were not. They seem a little more their own thing with their own elements as opposed to say a thug or a guard or a soldier.

And I also agree that one book a year like SCAG would not impact things too much at all. There's like 20 pages of crunch in there. What I'd prefer not to see is an entire book of that size filled with crunch. I mean if it happens, it happens, and I'll likely even buy a copy, but my personal feeling is that the game doesn't need that as much as people seem to think, and that I'm not sure that a book like that is a smart move for WotC at this time.

 

[nswanson27]

I think it's the idea of where a "class" comes from in the first place. They seem to mostly be based on archetypes found in fiction. The possible exception to this, at least initially, is clerics. Yes there are priestly types found in fiction, but their role as healers in the game is purely a mechanical aspect.

So, is it better to base a class around some archetype, or around some mechanical need or desire in the game space? A blend of the two seems the most likely answer, but if we had to pick, my choice would be the archetype.

And yes, I agree that many of the classes could be folded into others, such as the ranger and barbarian being types of fighters. I'm not saying they should do that, but they could have. I don't even think it would be that difficult. But the thing about those classes is that they are also based on clear archetypes within fiction. So while I could understand if they were folded into the Fighter, I also understand why they were not. They seem a little more their own thing with their own elements as opposed to say a thug or a guard or a soldier.

And I also agree that one book a year like SCAG would not impact things too much at all. There's like 20 pages of crunch in there. What I'd prefer not to see is an entire book of that size filled with crunch. I mean if it happens, it happens, and I'll likely even buy a copy, but my personal feeling is that the game doesn't need that as much as people seem to think, and that I'm not sure that a book like that is a smart move for WotC at this time.

True. Most classes in the phb are only a handfull of pages. The other thing is that there is varied levels of crunch. Adding a class doesn't affect anything else in the game (other than multiclassing options). Adding new spells or feats has a much broader scope.

 

[hawkeyefan]

True. Most classes in the phb are only a handfull of pages. The other thing is that there is varied levels of crunch. Adding a class doesn't affect anything else in the game (other than multiclassing options). Adding new spells or feats has a much broader scope.

That's true. Although it depends...a new class sometimes triggers the creation of associated spells and feats and the like. Although 5E seems to have moved away from that. One of my frustrations with 3E/Pathfinder was that they would put limitations on classes, and then create a feat that allowed you to bypass the limitation. As time went on I really grew to dislike that decision.

Hence my worry that a full on splat book would start to introduce those design elements just to fill up the book. Feats like "extra rage" and "extra ki" are bad ideas that become increasingly likely to be created in this edition with the more crunch that is introduced.

 

[delericho]

But having less profit from the RPG line that was the backbone of the company likely didn't help.

It may have been the backbone, but it was relatively small compared to the novels and the dice.

But in any case, even in just the field of RPGs, you can't simply pinpoint "too many products" as the cause of their trouble - TSR had two closely-related but strictly separate game lines (D&D and AD&D) and about a dozen settings all being published concurrently. That's too many competing products.

If your trainers are too tight, that doesn't help. But if you've had one leg chopped off and have shot yourself in the other foot, you can't really identify the trainers as the source of your problem.

 

[Corwin]

It may have been the backbone, but it was relatively small compared to the novels and the dice.

Do you have any figures showing TSR dice were relatively large compared to the RPG line? That seems wild to me. I'd love to see some numbers on that.

 

[delericho]

Do you have any figures showing TSR dice were relatively large compared to the RPG line? That seems wild to me. I'd love to see some numbers on that.

Not easily to hand. Ryan Dancey has written extensively about the fall of TSR, including on this site. I encourage you to read through that - it's really enlightening stuff. Basically, TSR should be a textbook example of how not to run a company.

Edit: however, in the course of looking for those numbers, the Silver Anniversary boxed set has reminded me of another disaster that engulfed TSR - in the same year the market fell out of Dragon Dice, TSR's major creditor also hit financial troubles.

So, imagine the situation: you've just invested all your money in shares that turned out to be worthless, you get presented with a massive bill that you must pay, and the bank you've been doing business with for years not only won't lend you any money but in fact can't lend you any money!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

First, new classes definitely affect the game overall. Let us assume that they add Mystics, and therefore psionics. At that point, the designers have to make sure that the new class (with its "new method" of "spellcasting")

Not unless the intent is to exclude adherents to the "Psionics is different" concept of it. The Mystic has not, so far, used spells, has it?

is backwards compatible with everything that has come before and was not written with psionics in mind - from monsters to dispel magic.

That is an unfortunate consequence of not including psionics in the PH from the beginning - or at least planning on doing so, and laying a foundation for it, or, at very least, designing the system to be more accommodating to new material (since, afterall, 5e tries to foster an expectation that DMs can do so on an amateur basis, eg DM's Guild).

This presents a whole host of balance issues. Same with any class- new classes and new abilities necessarily change what the game might present as challenges.

Absolutely true, but not really that important. Balance is not at the core of 5e the way it was 4e (nor is imbalance - ie 'rewarding system mastery' - central to 5e the way it was to 3e), rather DM Empowerment is central to 5e, and balance is something the DM can choose to impose to the degree he finds desirable & practicable.

The second, and even more important issue, is multiclassing.

Like any hypothetical new class, multi-classing remains explicitly opt-in optional. So it's only a consideration if you choose to make it one.

Because this is hard, doesn't mean it can't be done (or shouldn't be done), but it doesn't mean that adding new and balanced classes (that are also balanced for multiclass purposes) doesn't affect anything else.

Balanced & also balanced for multi-classing purposes isn't a bar existing classes would clear too well, I see no reason to hold anything up to the rubric of mechanical balance in 5e.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[nswanson27]

I disagree with that, especially to the extent that you are downplaying your parenthetical.

First, new classes definitely affect the game overall. Let us assume that they add Mystics, and therefore psionics. At that point, the designers have to make sure that the new class (with its "new method" of "spellcasting") is backwards compatible with everything that has come before and was not written with psionics in mind - from monsters to dispel magic. This presents a whole host of balance issues. Same with any class- new classes and new abilities necessarily change what the game might present as challenges. That doesn't mean that these aren't problems that can be solved with careful playtesting- but you can't make a blanket statement that it doesn't affect anything else.

The second, and even more important issue, is multiclassing. Complexity necessarily breeds issues, and with 5e style multiclassing (and, ahem, optimizers) you will have to game out the possibilities (because you can't possibly playtest them all!) of all of the multiclass possibilities. The interactions, at all levels, of the new class with the old classes, and of the new classes with the new classes.

Because this is hard, doesn't mean it can't be done (or shouldn't be done), but it doesn't mean that adding new and balanced classes (that are also balanced for multiclass purposes) doesn't affect anything else.

What I meant was, suppose there's a new class X. Notwithstanding multiclassing, the inclusion of X has no bearing on the balance of existing barbarian class. Now, suppose there's a new feat Y. That does have a bearing on the balance of barbarian (and every other class). My point: there's different levels of crunch.