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

[Jester David]

You claim that but the release schedule of products clearly paints a different picture.

I get what you're trying to do here.
We're looking at the heavy release schedule and saying it says X (where "X" is a fast edition turn around) while you're looking at the same thing and presenting it as Y (where "Y" is the sale of the company).

But your argument is based on a single data point with lots of other factors and has no related correlation. It's specious reasoning at best.
It also doesn't try to engage or refute any of the points made. It's just an automatic refutation without any real counterpoint or discussion.

Nope. Not taking that bait.

 

[Shasarak]

I get what you're trying to do here.
We're looking at the heavy release schedule and saying it says X (where "X" is a fast edition turn around) while you're looking at the same thing and presenting it as Y (where "Y" is the sale of the company).

But your argument is based on a single data point with lots of other factors and has no related correlation. It's specious reasoning at best.
It also doesn't try to engage or refute any of the points made. It's just an automatic refutation without any real counterpoint or discussion.

Nope. Not taking that bait.

You mean that you can look at an isolated fact and draw specious reasoning but I can not do the same?

Or to put it another way; three companies make DnD based products TSR, WotC and Paizo. Two of those companies have editions that last for longer then 5 years and one of them does not and yet all three of them produce prolific amounts of material.

So blaming edition churn on amount of material produced is not only specious but blatantly mistaken.

 

[Zhern]

There are no numbers just pictures on Dragon Dice.

Apparently this company is still trying to push Dragon Dice in 2016...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Both good points.

It'd probably be better not to keep using the class construct just because D&D always has. But that's soooo not on option. ;P Given that only two poor options are worthy of consideration, yes, I agree that basing classes on fictional archetypes is sensible. I'm not sure the Cleric is the only example of D&D deviating from that sense, though.

The 3e Sorcerer, for instance, is a class vehicle for a novel mechanic - spontaneous casting. Likwise the later 3.5 Warlock (and Warmage), for at-will casting. The 5e Warlock works because it has a newly unique mechanical schtick, sort-rest-recharge casting, while the Sorcerer suffers for it's newly-exclusive metamagic not being enough to carry it.

That they don't illustrates the 'need' to add classes rather than just proliferate barely-different sub-classes.

Unlike the Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Warlock, for instances. Also, on the flip side of that, the non-casting sub-classes are left to cover so many fictional archetypes that they could really be broken out into a number of full classes. If we were going by archetype, entirely. But the impetus for unique mechanics to define a class seems to seriously get in the way of that.
...
Oh, and on a more brand-management/philosophical side, presenting a more consistent brand image is a virtue that could be made of that necessity, as well. I'd be sanguine about a big-book-o-crunch if it the other alternative were rolling a half-ed. Aside from that, I think little bits of crunch where they'd dovetail neatly with a campaign supplement as in SCAG is a good model.

Classless D&D?!?? Insanity!!!

In all honesty, I don't mind the class system in the game, when it comes down to it. It serves a purpose and helps focus players a bit by giving them a kind of archetype to lean into on. Not that you can't also play against type...that can be great too. But the classes help give the game some structure.

My reason for preferring a limit to the number of classes...and indeed other options, too....is that the more that they add to the game, the greater the chances for things to become unbalanced. And while I am capable of course correcting on my own, I just prefer not to have to do so.

I suppose that other than the four or so core archetypical classes, those that seem the most justified are the ones that combine some kind of fictional inspiration with an interesting game mechanic. So in that sense, the Barbarian seems more justified than the Ranger, in my opinion.

I don't really want some big book full of crunch. In one of the surveys not long ago, homebrewing was biggest area that people play in. We need more material for people to create their own stories. I want books about the Feywild and the Shadowfell that have loads of lore and a few themed options that go along with those places.

I personally am much more open to fluff/lore material than crunch, so I'm not against this idea per se, even if I'm not sure how large an audience there is for it. But I have to ask...don't such sourcebooks already exist? From a prior edition, sure...but that shouldn't matter for fluff or lore, right?

 

[Tony Vargas]

My reason for preferring a limit to the number of classes...and indeed other options, too....is that the more that they add to the game, the greater the chances for things to become unbalanced. And while I am capable of course correcting on my own, I just prefer not to have to do so.

The way I see it, we're likely course-correcting as it is (just for one common instance, due to not sticking to the 6-8 encounter day), the burden's not likely to increase all that much.

And, closing the door on non-core material is easy.

I suppose that other than the four or so core archetypical classes, those that seem the most justified are the ones that combine some kind of fictional inspiration with an interesting game mechanic.

In the context of 5e, yes. Evoking the best (or most significant) in past editions also has a hand in it. Is it a legitimate archetype, has it featured prominently (and early) in a past edition, making it part of that D&D's identity, can it be supported by a distinctive mechanic?

So in that sense, the Barbarian seems more justified than the Ranger, in my opinion.

Obvious archetype, was a late addition to most eds, but in 3e from the beginning (and IMHO, particularly prominent in 3e as it was the 'beginner' class more so than the more complicated to build/play effectively Fighter), and has Rage as a distinctive mechanic. Ranger, OTOH, mushy archetype, no solid mechanical support, but prominent & early in most eds. Yep, I agree, though I can see why they felt the need to include the ranger, anyway, as it has been there alongside the big 4 in every PH1.

 

[Jester David]

You mean that you can look at an isolated fact and draw specious reasoning but I can not do the same?

Or to put it another way; three companies make DnD based products TSR, WotC and Paizo. Two of those companies have editions that last for longer then 5 years and one of them does not and yet all three of them produce prolific amounts of material.

So blaming edition churn on amount of material produced is not only specious but blatantly mistaken.

It's not an isolated fact though! It happened in every single instance: both 2e lines, both 3e lines, both 4e lines, and Pathfinder is only hanging on because it expcect so much fewer sales, and even it's having to cut back on Pathfinder and make a supreme gamble that there's a huge audience that wants Pathfinder in space.

But it doesn't matter. I'm done trying to engage with you. It's just causing me frustration that I don't need at this time. Good day.

 

[Shasarak]

Apparently this company is still trying to push Dragon Dice in 2016...

I like how they said that they put Dragon Dice "on hold"

 

[hawkeyefan]

The way I see it, we're likely course-correcting as it is (just for one common instance, by not sticking to the 6-8 encounter day), the burden's not likely to increase all that much.

And, closing the door on non-core material is easy.

There's some course correcting, definitely. Doesn't mean I want them to add more! The level of burden it might add would depend on how much they added to the game and what it was. For instance, I really want them to be careful with feats. I mentioned earlier in the thread (or maybe it was another thread, they're blurring a bit) that I don't want the kinds of feats that remove the inherent limitations placed in a class. 3E/Pathfinder was rife with these kinds of feats, and I feel like they're looming as a possibility as soon as feats are expanded.

As for closing the door on non-core material...in the past I've not always found it to be easy. Several players I gamed with during 3E/Pathfinder felt very strongly that anything "official", meaning published by WotC or Paizo, should be available in the game. It was really difficult to get them to see it any other way, and regardless of the outcome, we often had undue stress at the table.

Now, those players aren't still with my group, and 5E seems to have shifted things back to the DM making these kinds of judgement calls...so likely it wouldn't be an issue...but I'd just rather not find out. That's my purely selfish reason to be anti-splat.

In the context of 5e, yes. Evoking the best (or most significant) in past editions also has a hand in it. Is it a legitimate archetype, has it featured prominently (and early) in a past edition, making it part of that D&D's identity, can it be supported by a distinctive mechanic?

Obvious archetype, was a late addition to most eds, but in 3e from the beginning (and IMHO, particularly prominent in 3e as it was the 'beginner' class more so than the more complicated to build/play effectively Fighter), and has Rage as a distinctive mechanic. Ranger, OTOH, mushy archetype, no solid mechanical support, but prominent & early in most eds. Yep, I agree, though I can see why they felt the need to include the ranger, anyway, as it has been there alongside the big 4 in every PH1.

Yeah, I think we've had several iterations of the ranger to the point where there isn't even a consensus on what the class should be.

I blame Strider. If Tolkien hadn't labeled him as a Ranger, I don't think the class would exist.

 

[Shasarak]

It's not an isolated fact though! It happened in every single instance: both 2e lines, both 3e lines, both 4e lines, and Pathfinder is only hanging on because it expcect so much fewer sales, and even it's having to cut back on Pathfinder and make a supreme gamble that there's a huge audience that wants Pathfinder in space.

But it doesn't matter. I'm done trying to engage with you. It's just causing me frustration that I don't need at this time. Good day.

I guess if people keep on saying that this is the year that we get Pathfinder 2.0 then eventually we will get a winner.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's some course correcting, definitely. Doesn't mean I want them to add more!

There's another way to look at it. I mean, yes, it seems daunting if you think as every new addition as a distorting factor you have to compensate for. But, really, even if you are tailoring to your party, and even if you're trying to impose some balance upon them in the process, it's one effort, and only whatever they've done to break themselves is relevant - and that only in a net sense of how overpowered is the party all together, and how wrecked is their intraparty balance relative to eachother.

Turning the dial up to 13 instead of 12 to keep them challenged isn't that much more of a burden. And if the character that goes wild with increased effectiveness due to some unanticipated combo just happens to be the one that was languishing before, hey, your life may be a little easier. You never know.

The level of burden it might add would depend on how much they added to the game and what it was.

And how much of it impacted your party.

For instance, I really want them to be careful with feats. I mentioned earlier in the thread (or maybe it was another thread, they're blurring a bit) that I don't want the kinds of feats that remove the inherent limitations placed in a class. 3E/Pathfinder was rife with these kinds of feats, and I feel like they're looming as a possibility as soon as feats are expanded.

I can see that concern. I had a problem with a feat in 4e, that way, it removed OAs for spellcasting, just, like that, a tactical dynamic that was, really, classic to the game (mr mage should stay outta melee), gone. Obviously not a concern in 5e, but I see where you're coming from.

But I don't have an issue, personally, since I simply don't use feats unless I'm running AL (which I have been doing less of over time).

As for closing the door on non-core material...in the past I've not always found it to be easy.

Well, it was hard in the 3e era. RAW-uber-alles and 'entitlement' and whatnot. But those attitudes are mostly changing with 5e's shift in focus. I'd expect most 5e players to be a lot more accepting of any variant, whether it's adding options or restricting them. What're they gonna do? You can't remotely play the game without a DM, and not just anyone can DM.

Several players I gamed with during 3E/Pathfinder felt very strongly that anything "official", meaning published by WotC or Paizo, should be available in the game. It was really difficult to get them to see it any other way, and regardless of the outcome, we often had undue stress at the table.

I'm surprised you can get them to try 5e. If they don't run screaming from the new edition, it just might rub off on them, though.

Now, those players aren't still with my group, and 5E seems to have shifted things back to the DM making these kinds of judgement calls...so likely it wouldn't be an issue...but I'd just rather not find out. That's my purely selfish reason to be anti-splat.

(That'll show me for replying before I finish reading the whole post! I feel silly, now. ) Your problem players are gone, 5e is fostering trust of DMs, I think there's every reason to be hopeful that you won't have those kinds of issues, this time around!

Yeah, I think we've had several iterations of the ranger to the point where there isn't even a consensus on what the class should be.
I blame Strider. If Tolkien hadn't labeled him as a Ranger, I don't think the class would exist.

Or it'd be called something else Strider-referent, but not copyrighted by the Tolkien Estate...