D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Salthorae]

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.

They are related though, which is interesting that you can't see.

Slow pace of releases means fewer releases in which to put things. Fewer things to include published design means fewer published designed. Which means they are going to focus on the design philosophy that have currently which is subclasses over classes.

 

[Einlanzer0]

They are related though, which is interesting that you can't see.

Slow pace of releases means fewer releases in which to put things. Fewer things to include published design means fewer published designed. Which means they are going to focus on the design philosophy that have currently which is subclasses over classes.

No, you and a handful of others keep trying to relate them because you can't separate my actual argument from your preconceived notions about what my argument is.

Your conclusion here is a completely nonsensical leap from your premise.

 

[dave2008]

Honestly it's just starting to feel like once again WotC is being lazy, taking the easy way to solve and issue, instead of doing the work to do it right. WotC does good stuff when they put the effort in, but they take a lot of short cuts.

Didn't they already release the UA Mystic a psionic class? It hardly seems lazy to try a completely different approach. You may not like this approach, but I find it hard to classify it as lazy.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Didn't they already release the UA Mystic a psionic class? It hardly seems lazy to try a completely different approach. You may not like this approach, but I find it hard to classify it as lazy.

I think what was meant by this is that instead of taking the time to try to get it right they just kinda discarded it and simplified their approach by converting it into some subclasses, which I think is something worth criticizing.

Now, that said, if they're using this as a way of garnering additional feedback on psionics in general while still planning to develop a full psion class, I have no real issue with that.

 

[dave2008]

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.

Except for the free part you can do the same on DMsGuild. Most people I have purchased from have been very open to improving their product and updating their PDFs.

 

[Oofta]

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.

It does go back to your main complaint. If the devs were so sloppy and lazy, why is 5E arguably the best selling TTRPG of all time? The core of their design (relatively few classes, lots of subclasses) seems to be working. At least for the vast majority of players.

You may not like it, but the design philosophy has been successful beyond all expectations so far.

 

[Umbran]

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

shrug. They felt otherwise. Part of the point to realize that "oft-mentioned needed" means different things to different people. A given player "needs" a class because they want to play it. WotC "needs" a class because they are doing a release that really calls for it. There's a strong argument that none of the prior releases really needed one.

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.

It'd flow better is what you are worried about is stackign one rule on top of another, sure. But... that's probably not a priority for them. There's a pretty solid precept in business - do the things that give the most value ot the business first. Is Dark Sun going to sell as well as Eberron? Probably not. So, Dark Sun comes later.

It is a matter of opinion as to which is more central to the core themes of Eberron - artificers or a psionic race. I'd say the former. I am not a stickler for constantly representing all of a setting canon. I am more interested in supporting general themes. YMMV.

I find that philosophy reasonable - if the game had generic base classes, but, apart from the Fighter, it really doesn't.

shrug. I think, in terms of mechanical design elements, yes, they are pretty generic.

The Songs/Book/Pact/Blood divisions of arcane magic are pretty darn specific

And are all flavor text, about which I am not terribly concerned.

a "Magic-User" with each of those as sub-classes would fit the professed philosophy.

I have no issue with inconsistency between the general class-philosophy of the PHB and supplements. If that inconsistency sticks in your craw, I'm sorry, but he universe is under no obligation to meet yoru personal requirements for elegance.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A given player "needs" a class because they want to play it. WotC "needs" a class because they are doing a release that really calls for it. There's a strong argument that none of the prior releases really needed one.

WotC set out with Next to prettymuch please everyone, impossible though that may be, so what the players 'need' (want to be able to play in 5e as they did in their favorite prior edition) is a legit consideration.

"Need" in the sense of a setting requiring a certain class/monster/spell/item mechanic because it figures into backstory or theme or whatnot is different, and could have had more to do with the order of setting releases...

Is Dark Sun going to sell as well as Eberron? Probably not. So, Dark Sun comes later.
It is a matter of opinion as to which is more central to the core themes of Eberron - artificers or a psionic race.

Eberron very overtly had a place for all things D&D, including psionics. Dark Sun, in contrast, very much did not (no gods, arcane magic restricted/changed), but psionics had a very prominent place.

If 5e was going to pursue such a slow pace of release, and keep psionics out of core, Dark Sun and Eberron, both, should not have seen print without psionics, while Eberron surely also needed the Artificer, Dragonmarks, &c.

I have no issue with inconsistency between the general class-philosophy of the PHB and supplements. If that inconsistency sticks in your craw

When consistency with a design philosophy is used as an excuse, while not stuck to in other cases, yeah, it kinda does.

Nor is it strictly a 5e thing. When 4e fans noted that a Source wasn't 'complete' - didn't have all 4 roles represented - MM bristled "we're not grid-filling" then went on to fill the grid of every other source.

I'm sorry, but he universe is under no obligation to meet yoru personal requirements for elegance.

WotC isn't the universe.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The one thing about psionics that we learned when they did the original UAs about it was that there were actually two different types of psionics-- and that trying to do a "one size fits all" ruleset to cover them didn't seem to work.

The first type is the generic Psion. The one that if we were to say was going to be a class, would have as subclasses probably the Telepath and the Telekinetic. This is the one that is most spellcaster-like (if we were to align psionics at all to the base game for comparative reasons.) The other type of psionics is the ones that are not primarily known for it, but rather are other things first and who supplements it with psionics. The Psychic Warrior is first and foremost a warrior, and uses psionics to boost its fighting. The Soulknife is a roguish/monkish person who uses psionics to boost their abilities.

Their attempt at combining all 3 ideas into a single class as the Mystic apparently did not go over well, because from the isolated comments we have heard it was too hard to balance all the different pieces against each other. Putting a warrior, an expert and a "caster" all under the same psionic class umbrella just didn't work out.

So what they are doing with this particular UA makes a lot of sense... if we remove the wizard subclass "mentalist" from the equation. If we had only received the Psychic Warrior and the Soulknife as our two psionic subclasses to playtest, I suspect the overwhelming number of comments would be that it seemed like the "Psion" concept was missing, and thus we'd expect there was probably going to be a class for it down the line. Very few of us I suspect actually think that putting the Psychic Warrior under the Fighter and the Soulknife under the Rogue is worse than trying to jerry-rig them as subclasses of a single Psion class. Sure, there's probably a few of us who think that all six subclasses of the Mystic worked like a charm... but probably not that many.

It's only because they included the mentalist in the UA (which made people think it was going to mean there would not be a Psion class as well) that we've been getting the major freak-outs. And I can understand that to a certain extent-- it's been a class before so it could easily stand as a class on its own again. But I also understand the idea of not wanting to create an entire new mechanical system to do it--

1) Because Jeremy is right... new mechanical systems in supplemental books just don't get much play or use from the general D&D gaming audience (Book of Nine Swords or Magic of Incarnum anyone?)

2) The issues people have with doing it as a subclass of the wizard basically seem to come down to not "getting it" at level 1, using a spellbook, and needing components. Three things that are not so out-there as ideas that the only way to accomplish it is by making a whole new class. I mean come on... we're talking about Telepathy and Telekinesis! Two things you already do as a Wizard or Sorcerer!

At least from the perspective of the Artificer, there was nothing in the Wizard's canon that used alchemy that made us go "Why do we need a whole new class? The Wizard already uses alchemy for X, Y, and Z." But for the Psion? The Telepath and the Telekinetic? There is literally no functionality that either of those two subclasses are about that the Wizard and Sorcerer don't already do. Sure... the fluff of the Telepath Psion and the Telekinetic Psion is different than the Wizard who uses telepathy and telekinesis and the Sorcerer who uses telepathy and telekinesis... but the actual actions are exactly the same. They are all three reading other people minds, and moving things around with their minds. There is no functional difference to what they do. So in that regard I also understand why the idea of just making it a Mentalist Wizard to them makes sense.

Most likely I'm going to guess that the people who fill out the surveys will make it plain that while the Fighter subclass and the Rogue subclass are doable... they aren't going to want a Wizard subclass instead of a Psion class (with its own subclasses.) Whether or not that's really necessary will not be the issue.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

Alright. Everyone meet at the soccer field behind the 7-11 at 3pm tomorrow. Bring any Nerf balls you have.

We're gonna divide into two teams, Yes More Classes, and No Class Bloat.

We'll play best 2 out of 3 Dodgeball, winner decides the content of WotCs books next year (Note: I don't have authority to do this)

See you tomorrow!