D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[the Jester]

They clearly are doing this because they've released dozens of subclasses and 0 new classes until literally a few days ago.

They have run playtests of several full classes in Unearthed Arcana. Most got shot down by those of us who reviewed them. So it's not some sinister agenda, it's just how things have worked out this edition.

 

[the Jester]

You did what I outlined above. I can literally reflavor anything as anything else. I guess that means we're done with new material of any kind, right? Yay!

No, sorry, that doesn't work. The wizard package as it exists in D&D does not at all fit into witch archetypes from common fantasy, which is why it was created as an alternate class in 4e.

The 4e witch was a wizard build.

 

[the Jester]

I'm not convinced it is the spell list that is the issue more so than say the subclass design which doesn't differentiate enough particularly if everyone shares a kitchen sink spell list. Prohibited school of magic is a good start though and very easy to implement.

Note that not all schools of magic have spells at every level in 5e. So I think this would be a bit trickier than it might at first appear.

 

[the Jester]

I agree re analysis paralysis but it was not caused by class bloat, but PRC bloat.

Strongly disagree. PrC bloat was part of the issue; so was race bloat, feat bloat, and item bloat. But base class bloat was absolutely a factor. I saw it plenty of times, especially when players were making characters above first level.

Of the actual 1-20 classes, no more were worthless than 5E (er well teirs were a thing but the old classes were the lowest teir ones so that's another issue)

I'm not sure what you're saying with the 'no more were worthless than 5E' thing here. Are you saying that all the base classes in 3e were equal? Because I think the disparity between, say, a cleric and a fighter is pretty well-known and largely accepted. And that's not even stepping out of the PH. Include things like the true necromancer, which was strictly better than a necromancer wizard (at least at, you know, necromancy), and you're seeing even more base-class-bloat-caused imbalance. Not to even mention the poor fighter, especially when the Book of Nine Swords came out.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They were talking about warlord and they said they probably wouldn't create one because of the nature of 5E. It's just less of a tactical game than 4E was.

The Warlord concept doesn’t require tactical game mechanics.

Sounds to me like a wizard, sorcerer, druid, or warlock with a few magic items, find familiar, and an alignment.

That sounds about as satisfying and representative of the concept as calling a Dex Fighter with magic initiate a Bladesinger.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The 4e witch was a wizard build.

And it didn’t do a good job. It did pretty much nothing to feel like a witch.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The 4e witch was a wizard build.

Post-Essentials Sub-class.
They were closer to 1e sub-classes than 4e builds or 5e traditions.

 

[the Jester]

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.

Except that there are very few- perhaps even vanishingly few- concepts that intuitively work better as a full class, at least in my mind.

I can think of exactly two without really mulling it over- a psionic full class and a dedicated shapechanger. Pretty much everything else I can think of works easily as either a subclass or feat. To pull a few examples from past editions, the cancer mage? Warlock subclass with a tumor patron. (Yes, I have written this up in my campaign.) The ardent? A psionic bard subclass. Greenmetal adept or whatever the meteor-turns-me-into-a-construct was called (from 3e, a prestige class)? Either another warlock subclass or a feat. Or even just "this happens in play".

It's pretty hard for me to come up with more concepts broad enough to be worth a full class.

I guess the bottom line is that not everyone is going to agree on what "intuitively works better as a full class". And that's where the default 5e design philosophy of avoiding full class bloat comes into play.

 

[the Jester]

The issue is half the people in this thread are mocking the idea of new classes as "splat", bringing in baggage from previous discussions, as if that isn't what myriad subclasses with random themes are.

I don't think calling new classes splat or bloat is mocking the idea; rather, it's expressing a concern about it.

 

[the Jester]

And it didn’t do a good job. It did pretty much nothing to feel like a witch.

I didn't actually see it in play, but the thing is, if D&D has had a witch, and you say it wasn't enough of a witch, it's hard to tell what you want out of a witch. It's like if you wanted a warlord that wasn't focused on aiding your allies, or a sha'ir that didn't use genies to fetch spells.