D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Umbran]

Well they clearly are because we just got the artificer. And that's most likely because they realized that their initial draft of pigeonholing it as a wizard subclass was a disservice to the concept.

Note that the Artificer was developed as it was specifically needed for a particular setting.

As others have said - if they are going to do Dark Sun, then they'll need a Psion. But until they do Dark Sun... they don't have a compelling need to do a Psion.

More broadly, I kind of agree with a general point - a large number of classes we could imagine are probably best addressed as sub-classes, off the rather generic bases we already have. There are a few cases where I might agree a stnad-alone class is called for, but that may not be terribly often.

 

[TwoSix]

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!

It's why I prefer to get most of my homebrew from Reddit's Unearthed Arcana; it's all free and you can talk to the designers about balance concerns. Once you find users who are both prolific and balanced, you can see if they have a Patreon.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Note that the Artificer was developed as it was specifically needed for a particular setting.

As others have said - if they are going to do Dark Sun, then they'll need a Psion. But until they do Dark Sun... they don't have a compelling need to do a Psion.

More broadly, I kind of agree with a general point - a large number of classes we could imagine are probably best addressed as sub-classes, off the rather generic bases we already have. There are a few cases where I might agree a stnad-alone class is called for, but that may not be terribly often.

I don't disagree with that - which is why you don't see me putting up a fight about Psychic Warrior being a subclass instead of its own class. But it's ridiculously inelegant to make it a universal rule as there are all kinds of concepts that are better served as a full class than Ranger or Paladin are - Psion being one of them.

I think that's actually a big part of my irritation with this thread. Everyone is acting like it's either subclass everything or we have class bloat, which is a massive false dichotomy. 5e is already set up to avoid class bloat due to the existence of subclasses, so it's an irrational concern. For example, 3.5 had 4e had multiple psionic classes where that simply isn't necessary in 5e due to its design. It's the same reason we didn't get a Warlord class, which I agree with because it best fits the design space of a subclass for the fighter.

It's all the more reason why WotC should be getting really creative with new class design in 5e and not being as hyper-cautious with it as they have been.

 

[Oofta]

I don't disagree with that - which is why you don't see me putting up a fight about Psychic Warrior being a subclass instead of its own class. But it's ridiculously inelegant to make it a universal rule as there are all kinds of concepts that are better served as a full class than Ranger or Paladin are.

Doesn't it depend on what you want to see from psionics? I mean you could easily have a psion based fighter, barbarian, monk and so on. You could even do that and do a psion base class that is simply a caster.

Not that I'm attempting in any way to design such a thing and they may just create a new class. Honestly I'm not even sure what people would want since I've never actually seen a psion in play.

Or maybe they'll pull an artificer and create a new class if they ever do Dark Sun.

 

[Umbran]

But it's ridiculously inelegant to make it a universal rule as there are all kinds of concepts that are better served as a full class than Ranger or Paladin are.

And, of course, here's the telling point - there is no universal rule.

I mean, really - there isn't. The artificer pretty much proves it. Throw that out the window. Ignore the idea. There is no universal rule. The universal rule is a hyperbolic strawman. We should either discuss the reality, or not discuss the point at all.

The reality is we quibble over exactly how many. You want more. Okay. Fine.

However, the slow pace of release seems to be supporting sales the likes of which are unprecedented in D&D history, so you are effectively arguing with success. It is possible that a different pattern would sell even more... but that is highly speculative. Their current revenue is not at all speculative. Do not expect them to fiddle with the formula until the formula ceases to work very well. They may have taken to the wisdom of not making perfect the enemy of good.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If they aren’t happy with 5e design goals and output rate why are they playing 5e? That is a serious question. Why play an rpg that doesn’t do what you want in the big areas?

That’s a nonsense question. I can’t even fathom how you could think it’s a sensible question. If a person doesn’t like one aspect of how the game is managed, that doesn’t indicate literally anything about whether they like the game overall.

What is a shaman to you? What do you mean by “shaman” that you don’t find can be represented?

Considering your apparent biases on the topic, why should I bother engaging here? I know that your response is most likely to be “well you can build that with XYZ”, which will at best be a kludge that involves ignoring half of the characters Abilities.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Note that the Artificer was developed as it was specifically needed for a particular setting.

Well, sure, but if any of the oft-mentioned needed classes could have been a sub-class of Wizard, it's the Artificer.

As others have said - if they are going to do Dark Sun, then they'll need a Psion. But until they do Dark Sun... they don't have a compelling need to do a Psion.

Eberron had a pretty strong need for psioinics, too, what with the whole Kalashtar/Quori thing.

Why they didn't do Dark Sun, with a fully-formed psionics system, followed by Eberron, with the Artificer, IDK. It'd've flowed better.

More broadly, I kind of agree with a general point - a large number of classes we could imagine are probably best addressed as sub-classes, off the rather generic bases we already have.

I find that philosophy reasonable - if the game had generic base classes, but, apart from the Fighter, it really doesn't. The Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard and Monk are far from generic. The Songs/Book/Pact/Blood divisions of arcane magic are pretty darn specific, for instance - a "Magic-User" with each of those as sub-classes would fit the professed philosophy.

 

[Salthorae]

That’s a nonsense question. I can’t even fathom how you could think it’s a sensible question. If a person doesn’t like one aspect of how the game is managed, that doesn’t indicate literally anything about whether they like the game overall.

Considering your apparent biases on the topic, why should I bother engaging here? I know that your response is most likely to be “well you can build that with XYZ”, which will at best be a kludge that involves ignoring half of the characters Abilities.

If you don't like the design philosophy (how the game is designed, classes, etc included) and you don't like the release schedule it doesn't make sense why you'd be playing the game.

I will do my best to say "build that with XYZ" but neither of us know if it's a kludge ignoring half of the abilities because I have no idea what abilities you think are relevant to a "shaman". It may end up being something where I look at it and say "yeah, that would be suited to its own class". Never know till you try.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you don't like the design philosophy (how the game is designed, classes, etc included) and you don't like the release schedule it doesn't make sense why you'd be playing the game.

Not liking the fact that they try to avoid new classes, and that they release things slowly, has literally no impact on liking or not liking the actual game.

 

[Einlanzer0]

And, of course, here's the telling point - there is no universal rule.

I mean, really - there isn't. The artificer pretty much proves it. Throw that out the window. Ignore the idea. There is no universal rule. The universal rule is a hyperbolic strawman. We should either discuss the reality, or not discuss the point at all.

The reality is we quibble over exactly how many. You want more. Okay. Fine.

However, the slow pace of release seems to be supporting sales the likes of which are unprecedented in D&D history, so you are effectively arguing with success. It is possible that a different pattern would sell even more... but that is highly speculative. Their current revenue is not at all speculative. Do not expect them to fiddle with the formula until the formula ceases to work very well. They may have taken to the wisdom of not making perfect the enemy of good.

Except, for the 100th time, my arguments in this thread have nothing to do with the pace of releases. Sure, I'd like to see more, but that is beside the point I'm arguing in this thread.