D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Salthorae]

Also irrelevant to the discussion.

How is it irrelevant? The OP's entire point is calling out WotC for NOT spewing out more base classes.

My point is that the WotC design philosophy is entirely opposed to that type of design. They have their classes and they're just going to give us more subclasses.

We might get a full class Psion, but beyond that I don't really expect any more base classes for the life of 5e given that we've gotten exactly 1 in 5 years.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How is it irrelevant? The OP's entire point is calling out WotC for NOT spewing out more base classes.

My point is that the WotC design philosophy is entirely opposed to that type of design. They have their classes and they're just going to give us more subclasses.

We might get a full class Psion, but beyond that I don't really expect any more base classes for the life of 5e given that we've gotten exactly 1 in 5 years.

I don’t care, bud.

When someone challenges the status quo, reiteration of what the status quo is, is completely useless and irrelevant.

 

[Salthorae]

When someone challenges the status quo, reiteration of what the status quo is, is completely useless and irrelevant.

It's really not though.

When they're challenging a status quo for a business that is experiencing continued double digit growth in sales doing exactly what they're doing now, there is no "challenging the status quo" on this one.

OP can state their dissatisfaction all they want, but it's not going to change the WotC design philosophy.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's really not though.

When they're challenging a status quo for a business that is experiencing continued double digit growth in sales doing exactly what they're doing now, there is no "challenging the status quo" on this one.

OP can state their dissatisfaction all they want, but it's not going to change the WotC design philosophy.

Depends on the feedback. Nothing set in stone yet.

 

[Salthorae]

Depends on the feedback

They have the feedback though... doing what they're doing, they are making money like never before in the history of D&D.

That is the only feedback that really matters to a company and it's been all positive for how they've been going on their current design philosophy.

 

[Zardnaar]

They have the feedback though... doing what they're doing, they are making money like never before in the history of D&D.

That is the only feedback that really matters to a company and it's been all positive for how they've been going on their current design philosophy.

They changed there mind on the Mystic thing it seems.

Bundle the Psion in with Darksun or something like they did with Eberron.

 

[Sadras]

Oh yeah, there totally isn't any bloat in 3e. I mean, you only have, for the base classes: barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, wizard, adept, aristocrat, commoner, expert, warrior, archivist, beguiler, binder, crusader, dragon shaman dragonfire adept, dread necromancer, duskblade, factorum, favored soul, healer, hexblade, incarnate, knight, marshal, ninja, samurai, scout, shaman, shadowcaster, shugenja, sohei, soulborn, spellthief, spirit shaman, swashbuckler, swordsage, totemist, truenamer, warblade, warlock, wu jen, mariner, master, mystic, nightstalker, noble, artificer, magewright, psionic artificer, urban adept, ardent, divine mind, erudite, lurk, psion, psychic rogue, psychic warrior, soul knife, and wilder.

WTF, what was the difference between the aristocrat and noble? 1 additional musical instrument proficiency and 2 further languages?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

WTF, what was the difference between the aristocrat and noble? 1 additional musical instrument proficiency and 2 further languages?

Are you serious? There are so many differences between the two.

I wouldn't expect a commoner like you to get it though.

 

[Coroc]

Again, what about the witch is something that can't be represented?

You did not ask me, but I got a differentiated view on this topic. A witch can be easily depicted as a subclass of sorcerer of course, A shaman or witchdoctor not so much. Well you could eventually, by carfully selecting the spells, or you could take the cleric as a baseline and add some wizard spells as "domain spells", but you got to add mechanics eventually for things like totems or spirit animals so maybe a ranger beastmaster would serve as a better baseline, of course with different spells and a lot of refluff but otoh you had the classical halfcaster thing for shaman and witchdoctor.

You see there are many ways to do new stuff in 5e one of the options would also be to add a tribal caster class with shaman and witch doctor as subclass, why not?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Number of classes should be kept to a minimum.

If you have a character concept that can't be covered by current classes, first see if you can do it with a subclass.

Only if it can't be done with a subclass should an additional class be added.

I actually think 5e could afford to lose Barbarian and Sorcerer.