D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[the Jester]

Ok, Assassin and Warlord as new core classes.

They didn't say that everything that had been a core class would remain a core class. The assassin is in as a subclass, and the warlord is (arguably) a mix of various battlemaster/bard/feat options. Though I, like many warlord fans, find that take on the warlord dissatisfying.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

This reminds me of playing boardgames with my brother when we were kids. Anytime I started to get ahead of him, suddenly there was another rule he'd forgotten to tell me about that meant I couldn't do whatever I was doing to win.

So anyway, your entire line of argument (Class had to be in a previous PHB, oh only a PHB1, oh being in a PHB1 isn't a guarantee) is of course completely destroyed by the existence of Artificer in Rising.

The publishing of Artificer which isn't from a PHB, but from a setting supplement, means that ANY existing class from a previous edition is clearly fair game to return as a full class IF the developers think it's appropriate to the setting.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This reminds me of playing boardgames with my brother when we were kids. Anytime I started to get ahead of him, suddenly there was another rule he'd forgotten to tell me about that meant I couldn't do whatever I was doing to win.

So anyway, your entire line of argument (Class had to be in a previous PHB, oh only a PHB1, oh being in a PHB1 isn't a guarantee) is of course completely destroyed by the existence of Artificer in Rising.

The publishing of Artificer which isn't from a PHB, but from a setting supplement, means that ANY existing class from a previous edition is clearly fair game to return as a full class IF the developers think it's appropriate to the setting.

Yeah, I could see a couple new classes coming out of a Kara-Tur or Dark Sun setting book as well.

Personally, I really don't see what all the debate is about. If the devs feel a new class is warranted or desired by the gaming community and will add to the enjoyment of the game, they will add it. If not, they might offer a UA version or supplement to appease players as best they can. They have limited time and resources and like all of us have to spend them best as they see fit.

I mean it isn't as though you have to use something at your table, nor does the DM need to allow it. As personal preference, I've never seen the "need" for many of the class since they could be represented by subclasses. Would they have been deeply developed enough as subclasses to make most people happy or at least content? Who knows?

 

[the Jester]

This reminds me of playing boardgames with my brother when we were kids. Anytime I started to get ahead of him, suddenly there was another rule he'd forgotten to tell me about that meant I couldn't do whatever I was doing to win.

So anyway, your entire line of argument (Class had to be in a previous PHB, oh only a PHB1, oh being in a PHB1 isn't a guarantee) is of course completely destroyed by the existence of Artificer in Rising.

To restate my point: The justification for the base classes in the PH was explicitly stated by the designers during the design process. I didn't make it up. I'm simply reiterating what we were told during the playtest and design period.

My 'line of argument', as you put it, is the guys who made the game told us this is what they were doing as they were doing it. I didn't change the argument; I just kept clarifying what they said. And as for "being in a PH1 isn't a guarantee", well, the designers would argue that they got it all in there. The assassin is in there. The warlord is in there (in a way I don't find satisfying, but it's there).

And the artificer isn't in the PH, so its existence doesn't "destroy" any argument at all. In fact, I'm not even making an argument here- I am telling you what the designers told us during the design process. I'm not sure if you were involved in the 5e playtest, but if you search around, you can probably even find Mearls' statement about including everything from a previous PH (and again, I'm shortening/summarizing here). (...and I could be wrong, it could have been Crawford or someone else instead of Mearls, but I'm pretty sure it was Mearls.)

The publishing of Artificer which isn't from a PHB, but from a setting supplement, means that ANY existing class from a previous edition is clearly fair game to return as a full class IF the developers think it's appropriate to the setting.

Sure. But it won't be in the PH.

And any class at all is on the table if the designers think it's appropriate to the product they are working on, setting or otherwise.

My argument about designing a base class is best summarized as: There should be a very high bar to clear before something is considered worthy of a base class. Add to that all the specifics, e.g. I don't think witch or brawler clears that bar, but those are details.

 

[generic]

Here's 7.

1) It makes multi-class combinations which are unbalanced more difficult to predict as the number of classes (as opposed to sub-classes) increase;

2) Any themes it contains which overlap with existing themes from other classes will dilute those other classes;

3) It establishes psionics as equal importance to magic (after campaigns have run for sometimes 6 years with little psionics) which can upend setting themes where psionics are not of equal importance to magic - making them subclasses allows a lot more control over how prominent they are as their own separate "thing" in the setting because it eases in through only a few level touchstones, but a separate class would establish it across all 20 levels and be much more noticeable and therefore more prone to breaking the verisimilitude of established campaigns. And while yes a DM can always control their setting, it's more complicated when you use rotating DMs where one likes Psionics more than the other, or where a DM wants his players to enjoy the use of new books they buy and tries hard to incorporate it but has more difficulty absorbing a full class on a new theme as opposed to a subclass.

4) It increases the odds of option paralysis, where the number of choices presented by a subclass is significantly fewer than the increasing the number of classes and therefore it's own subclasses.

5) It increases the odds you will have a problem of the haves vs the have-nots in games. When new subclasses are introduced this can be a minor issue, but they're still just new sub-themes to existing classes which are typically viewed as not game-altering in nature as "the new hotness" that players who cannot afford that book might want. However a new class, with it's own sub-classes, risks it being more of a major issue where the prominence of the theme can be viewed as "the new hotness" and therefore cause a sense of inequality in the game when some players might want to enjoy that material but cannot access it / afford it (and while you might suggest they can just borrow it, that has it's own equality dynamics - people cannot afford something don't like admitting they cannot afford it, and might feel embarrassed asking to borrow it, and might feel compelled to spend money on it they don't have because of those feelings).

6) Psion as it's own class isn't as popular, according to the Data WOTC has access to and you do not, than using them as a sub-class. Giving more people what they want is a good thing.

7) I don't want a full-class Psion (anymore) and spending limited time and resources working on something I don't want them to work on means they cannot spend that limited time and resources working on something I do want them to work on.

Okay, I'll push back on each of these.

1. Well, yes, this is true. However, this was the case with the Artificer, which was released, so, there's that... Furthermore, thanks to bounded accuracy, "dead level" design that is consistent, and the restriction on bonus actions per turn, WotC has made balancing multiclass options much easier on themselves.

2. As was the case with the Artificer making Conjuration Wizards no longer the sole source of class-specific magical objects. This isn't an argument.

3. Using this hypothetical, if one rotating DM likes Divine Magic, and the other doesn't, you could run into the same problem. Or, if one DM likes monstrous races, and another doesn't. Also, it does not establish Psionics as having the same cultural prominence as magic. This is kind of rubbish, in my opinion.

4. Okay, I'll grant you that.

5. Yep, but this varies by table. For example, at my table, people who don't even own XGtE play XGtE subclasses, because we share our books with each other.

6. Where was this said?

7. What you want matters no more than what I want. This is what I like to call the Narcissus Fallacy, believing that just because you want or don't want something, you're right. It's just a personal bias (which you're entitled to), but it doesn't mean anything.

 

[generic]

My argument about designing a base class is best summarized as: There should be a very high bar to clear before something is considered worthy of a base class. Add to that all the specifics, e.g. I don't think witch or brawler clears that bar, but those are details.

I suppose I would say that Witch and Psion clear that bar for me, but Brawler doesn't. That being said, I wouldn't oppose the implementation of a Brawler class.

 

[Mistwell]

Okay, I'll push back on each of these.

1. Well, yes, this is true. However, this was the case with the Artificer, which was released, so, there's that... Furthermore, thanks to bounded accuracy, "dead level" design that is consistent, and the restriction on bonus actions per turn, WotC has made balancing multiclass options much easier on themselves.

2. As was the case with the Artificer making Conjuration Wizards no longer the sole source of class-specific magical objects. This isn't an argument.

3. Using this hypothetical, if one rotating DM likes Divine Magic, and the other doesn't, you could run into the same problem. Or, if one DM likes monstrous races, and another doesn't. Also, it does not establish Psionics as having the same cultural prominence as magic. This is kind of rubbish, in my opinion.

4. Okay, I'll grant you that.

5. Yep, but this varies by table. For example, at my table, people who don't even own XGtE play XGtE subclasses, because we share our books with each other.

6. Where was this said?

7. What you want matters no more than what I want. This is what I like to call the Narcissus Fallacy, believing that just because you want or don't want something, you're right. It's just a personal bias (which you're entitled to), but it doesn't mean anything.

1. The odds of a problem increase with each new level. They increased with the artificer and will increase further with a psion class. And while they made it "easier" to balance, that doesn't make it "easy". The problem gets worse as you have more classes to balance, as each added one needs to balance with not just the PHB but the other new classes they release AND any future new classes they release. It's an issue of progressive risk increasing with each one.

2. It's an argument. You're saying artificer diluted something so that makes other dilutions OK? I, and many others, do not like theme dilution. Saying "something else already made it worse" isn't a good argument for making it even more worse.

3. Campaigns were establish with divine magic as a base assumption. Psionics were not. And while it does not insist on psionics as cultural prominent it does force a DM to account for how it functions within their pre-establish campaign setting which didn't previously have one.

5. If some meaningful number of tables can have this issue, then it's a meaningful issue

6. It seems to be implied from their decision to move off the class and turn to the sub-class.

7. Yes, what I want matters no more than what you want however you asked for a reason which was not "it's not necessary" and "I don't want it because it means they're not spending those limited resources on what I do want" is a reason which is not related to "it's not necessary". Furthermore, if what I want is more popular than what you want in this respect, it leaves the realm of the Narcissus Fallacy and moves firmly into the utilitarian realm hinted at in #6 above. If for example a Warlord, or Mass Combat rules, or high level domain rules, are more popular things they could be working on than this Psion class, then it's not at all the Narcissus Fallacy to say you'd rather their limited resources were spent on things more people want.

Bottom line though, you did ask for reasons which were not "it's not necessary" and I gave you many.

 

[generic]

@Mistwell an implication is not a fact, and what the designers intend cannot be ascertained by the clip of which you spoke.

Furthermore, to push back against the third issue you mentioned, no DM is forced to include anything at their table, unless they're an AL DM, in which case... suck it up.

 

[Einlanzer0]

1. The odds of a problem increase with each new level. They increased with the artificer and will increase further with a psion class. And while they made it "easier" to balance, that doesn't make it "easy". The problem gets worse as you have more classes to balance, as each added one needs to balance with not just the PHB but the other new classes they release AND any future new classes they release. It's an issue of progressive risk increasing with each one.

2. It's an argument. You're saying artificer diluted something so that makes other dilutions OK? I, and many others, do not like theme dilution. Saying "something else already made it worse" isn't a good argument for making it even more worse.

3. Campaigns were establish with divine magic as a base assumption. Psionics were not. And while it does not insist on psionics as cultural prominent it does force a DM to account for how it functions within their pre-establish campaign setting which didn't previously have one.

5. If some meaningful number of tables can have this issue, then it's a meaningful issue

6. It seems to be implied from their decision to move off the class and turn to the sub-class.

7. Yes, what I want matters no more than what you want however you asked for a reason which was not "it's not necessary" and "I don't want it because it means they're not spending those limited resources on what I do want" is a reason which is not related to "it's not necessary". Furthermore, if what I want is more popular than what you want in this respect, it leaves the realm of the Narcissus Fallacy and moves firmly into the utilitarian realm hinted at in #6 above. If for example a Warlord, or Mass Combat rules, or high level domain rules, are more popular things they could be working on than this Psion class, then it's not at all the Narcissus Fallacy to say you'd rather their limited resources were spent on things more people want.

Bottom line though, you did ask for reasons which were not "it's not necessary" and I gave you many.

I have a response to all of this; I just need a bit to write it up since I'm traveling.

 

[Parmandur]

I have a response to all of this; I just need a bit to write it up since I'm traveling.

You wouldn't want anybody to think you agreed with @Mistwell or anything by not replying.

It is, actually. As I said, though, it doesn't even matter. If Crawford thought they would lose money on psionics, what was the point of developing a whole class for UA to begin with? This argument simply doesn't hold much water. If Crawford thought psionics struggled in previous editions, that should be a challenge to do it right this edition. Not an excuse to cop out and half-ass it. In my opinion, this doesn't bode well for him to lead this edition successfully.

They've been testing Psionics for 4.5 years precisely to discover what people want, and test it before publishing it. The most recent tests are the results of years of iteration and research. Like them or not, they moving towards what they see people asking for in responses. The most recent UA is proof that they are working on the concept, but these things don't happen overnight.

We might well see a full Psion yet, but that will be the result of long thought and work, not getting it out there for the sake of publishing.