D&D General Which of these should be core classes for D&D?

[Frozen_Heart]

Just because a heritage is in the core book doesn't mean every table is required to use it. If I was running a game with no playable orcs, then that's how it is.

I've done essentially the opposite. Specifically designed a setting where almost everything is usable so players have as much freedom as possible. (apart from odd cases like dragonmarked houses and ravinica backgrounds.)

Sure, if I wasn't building from DnD I'd probably have orcs as the unplayable monster species, but as I want everything as smooth as possible that's not the case.

Which is why a completely from scratch unplayable species got designed for it.

 

[Lanefan]

Just because a heritage is in the core book doesn't mean every table is required to use it. If I was running a game with no playable orcs, then that's how it is.

True, but the fact that it's in the core book as playable means the designers have to design the species with that in mind.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've done essentially the opposite. Specifically designed a setting where almost everything is usable so players have as much freedom as possible. (apart from odd cases like dragonmarked houses and ravinica backgrounds.)

Sure, if I wasn't building from DnD I'd probably have orcs as the unplayable monster species, but as I want everything as smooth as possible that's not the case.

Which is why a completely from scratch unplayable species got designed for it.

My priority is to create a coherent imaginary world for the players to interact with, not to provide the players with as much character creation freedom as possible. I certainly take player desires into account however.

 

[Micah Sweet]

True, but the fact that it's in the core book as playable means the designers have to design the species with that in mind.

Sadly this is true. But, none of us are going to stop a designer from putting what they or their corporate overlords want to in a book, so we have to make our own choices.

 

[TwoSix]

My priority is to create a coherent imaginary world for the players to interact with, not to provide the players with as much character creation freedom as possible. I certainly take player desires into account however.

Why not both? It's not like you can't create a multiplicity of coherent settings that also include pretty much every option available.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why not both? It's not like you can't create a multiplicity of coherent settings that also include pretty much every option available.

You can, of course. But I don't want to be strait-jacjeted by someone else's concept of what should be in my game, and that certainly includes the designers.

 

[Scribe]

You can, of course. But I don't want to be strait-jacjeted by someone else's concept of what should be in my game, and that certainly includes the designers.

We cant have it both ways though. They need to pick a lane and define the setting/game/world, or 'its whatever' and anything goes.

 

[Minigiant]

Best example I know of the 3-4 core class system working is Worlds Without Number. Still allows the OSR ideal of differentiation by description, but also has mechanical diversity with simple but meaty early game skill and focus (feat) choices.

Yeah outside of WWN, most 3-4 class systems who aren't using a themed setting tend to fail at providing the mechanics for the classes they've demoted or removed. It's often awkward to shove everything in.

This is why I went the other way, I let the rule rules handle the harsh math, balance process, and customization. This allows the many classes to link back into the core rules freeing up space and reducing balance problems.

 

[Micah Sweet]

We cant have it both ways though. They need to pick a lane and define the setting/game/world, or 'its whatever' and anything goes.

5e doesn't believe in picking a lane. That's why it's an incoherent game. Say what you will about 4e, but it was quite coherent.

Its a shame too, because it's a decent base system. Really too bad they have the power over the fanbase that they do, because there are so many better custodians of the name and IP.

 

[Scribe]

5e doesn't believe in picking a lane.

I think they kind of have. There is no fully realized setting, because I wont grant them Eberron. They want something less defined, more free form, and they dont want to be tied down.

Over the last few weeks I've been hilariously busy, and increasingly frustrated at the discourse here (not with you) and people continuing to appeal to or refer to old editions as if they are relevant today, in the year of our lord 2023.

It really isnt anymore. "Oh you have your old 2e lore in old books." Who cares? 5e is going to be 10 years old. It is the defacto definition of D&D for the largest 'generation' of gamers, and is unless WotC throws a massive curve ball next year, pretty much going to be exactly what it is in a post Tashas world. "Oh it was like this in 1e." "Oh 4e fixed everything and is gods gift." It just doesnt matter.

5e is shaping up to be evergreen, and is going to be the definition of D&D, for a TON of people, for decades.