D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Oofta]

I dunno, maybe, just.. actually read the original post?

Where you say that the developers are lazy because they don't create dozens of new classes instead of using subclasses?

Because I personally don't see the need. For example, I wrote up a monk the other night. I wanted him to be a little rogue-like so I took the urchin background. Done. No need for a new class or subclass, I have a ninja. If that background hadn't done it I could have created a custom background or multi-classed.

The current set of rules is much more flexible than previous editions, there's less of a need for new classes for every possibility. I see little value to a new class if it can be covered by a subclass which kicks in for most PCs by the 3rd game session or so.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Where you say that the developers are lazy because they don't create dozens of new classes instead of using subclasses?

Because I personally don't see the need. For example, I wrote up a monk the other night. I wanted him to be a little rogue-like so I took the urchin background. Done. No need for a new class or subclass, I have a ninja. If that background hadn't done it I could have created a custom background or multi-classed.

The current set of rules is much more flexible than previous editions, there's less of a need for new classes for every possibility. I see little value to a new class if it can be covered by a subclass which kicks in for most PCs by the 3rd game session or so.

Nope. You failed again. What I actually said was the developers are sloppy when they take a concept that intuitively works better as a full class and, instead of either developing it fully or leaving it as homebrew, they shoehorn it into a subclass or even a series of subclasses tacked onto existing classes arbitrarily - bloating those classes with themes and mechanics that are all over the place.

 

[Oofta]

Nope. You failed again. What I actually said was the developers are sloppy when they take a concept that intuitively works better as a full class and, instead of either developing it fully or leaving it as homebrew, they shoehorn it into a subclass or even a series of subclasses tacked onto existing classes arbitrarily.

Insulting the devs because they didn't write the game exactly like you want it doesn't mean much.

It may be more "intuitive" for you, but previous editions took that path. I'm glad they didn't repeat the mistake. I'd rather have a flexible chassis than have to join the book of the month club so I can find the one variation that sort of matches my vision.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Insulting the devs because they didn't write the game exactly like you want it doesn't mean much.

It may be more "intuitive" for you, but previous editions took that path. I'm glad they didn't repeat the mistake. I'd rather have a flexible chassis than have to join the book of the month club so I can find the one variation that sort of matches my vision.

Yeah, you still aren't getting it. I don't know how else to explain it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The current set of rules is much more flexible than previous editions

Can't even begin to agree with that assertion. 5e uses full-on straightjacket classes, just like 1e, really. It curbs that slightly with 2e-Kit-like backgrounds, and optional 3e-lite feats & MCing. Sub-classes (archetypes, BTW, is the label for Fighter/Rouge sub-classes, every other class has a different term for it, just say'n) represent a level of flexibility somewhere between old-school hardwired sub-classes that were just alternate classes and 2e specialty priests/specialist wizards, OT1H, and 3e/4e 'builds' OTO - as befits a compromise edition, I suppose.

But, it remains very much - as it's meant to - traditional D&D, which means it's just a long lists of long lists (though less long than any ed since 1e), with playing the character you want ultimately dependent on there being something 'close enough' on the list.

3e & 4e were both had much more flexible rulesets than 5e. Much more. Not even a fair comparison, really.

What flexibility 5e is an aftermarket accessory added by any DM willing to wield a machete. It's like 0e/1e, that way, really, which makes it a fine tribute to the early game, a perfect vehicle for the current come-back, and a laudable marketing/commercial success.

, there's less of a need for new classes for every possibility.

Sub-classes are more like little mini-classes unto themselves than builds in 3e & 4e or Kits in 2e, and less like that then sub-classes in 1e (which were, totally, full classes onto themselves, just inheriting a few things from the nominal over-class, like what magic items they could use, for instance).

So, really, 5e 'needs fewer classes' in the sense that it can proliferate sub-classes to the same basic effect as proliferating classes (especially PrCs).

It would not have been that hard to reduce the number of classes to 4, rather like the class groups in 2e, and have Paladins, Rangers, & Barbarians (& Warlord) sub-classes of Fighter, Sorcerer & Warlock (& Artificer) sub-classes of wizard, Bard & Monk sub-classes of Rogue, and the Druid (& Avenger, & Archivist) as sub-classes of Cleric.

We'd still need a freak'n Psionicist, though.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So the DmsGuild doesn't buy anything? Because that seems to be the division. Most people seem to be okay with the release schedule and if you really need more variety its a few clicks away.

Why pay for something I’ll just have to rebalance myself?

I mean, I’ve allowed maybe 1/5th of what I’ve picked up from there, because most of it is useless from a balance stand point. And I’m not even especially worried about balance in 5e! I just want options that don’t shoot significantly outside the power band of the PHB!

Not to mention all the poorly designed stuff from the perspective of the basic design philosophy of 5e. A little innovation is great, but things have to actually fit with the rest of the game.

Hell, even Kobold Press I’ve got products from that just don’t work without tinkering from me and my fellow DMs in my group.

Even beyond that, the existence of 3pp material doesn’t help those folks who (unlike me for the most part) aren’t happy with 5e’s design goals or output rate. Not every group is okay with adding homebrew to their game. Rather a lot of groups plays as close to RAW/wotc only as possible.

It’s funny that the shaman keeps getting mentioned, though. It’s one of the only classes I still don’t think can satisfyingly be represented in 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why pay for something I’ll just have to rebalance myself?

Because it's the price of admission. D&D is functionally the whole hobby, really, the moreso as it enjoys such rapid growth.
At least you can balance it yourself - it's not so tied to AL or so invested in a culture of RaW that there's no acceptance variants.

It’s funny that the shaman keeps getting mentioned, though. It’s one of the only classes I still don’t think can satisfyingly be represented in 5e.

As much as I like the current, 1e-like take on the Druid, it could make a lot of sense to break it out from the Cleric, and have a set of more shamanistic/animist/'Old Religion' classes (or Class & many sub-classes, I suppose) - actually the Ranger & Barbarian are already there, a bit too. Druid, Ranger, Barbarian, Shaman, all using evocative mechanics that make them distinct from the Cleric/Paladin OT1H, and the Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/EK/AT OTO.

 

[Oofta]

What don't I understand? You don't like design decisions they made.

Your basic points

...every new class concept into a subclass for one of the existing classes.
...(arguably fake) problem of class bloat
...subclasses aren't multi-class friendly
...doesn't really make thematic sense
...psionics [NOTE: I never saw a psion in play in previous editions, based on the other thread, it was a rarely used option]

then throw in some insults to drive your point home that your opinion matters more than anyone elses.

...terrible approach,
..."sloppy".
...lazy

About the only thing I (slightly) agree with is the subclasses and multi-classing. No one in my game has ever mentioned anything about it, but it would be incredibly simple to house rule in some swapping of abilities.

But this is all just like, an opinion, man. I understand what you're saying, I just disagree.

 

[Einlanzer0]

What don't I understand? You don't like design decisions they made.

Your basic points



then throw in some insults to drive your point home that your opinion matters more than anyone elses.



About the only thing I (slightly) agree with is the subclasses and multi-classing. No one in my game has ever mentioned anything about it, but it would be incredibly simple to house rule in some swapping of abilities.

But this is all just like, an opinion, man. I understand what you're saying, I just disagree.

Tell me exactly what you disagree with, because I'd actually like to address it.

 

[generic]

Tell me exactly what you disagree with, because I'd actually like to address it.

This falls into:

I'm not a moderator in any way, but please be respectful.