D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[Minigiant]

It is that easy. I do it (from both sides) all the time. I'm sorry it hasn't worked out that way for you.

This thread exists (for some) because there is an unhealthy belief among some gamers that only WotC can solve their problems, and since that seems very unlikely, said folks are perennially disappointed.

I don't think you getting what I'm saying.

If Matt Mercer published the master swordsman subclass many DMs would allow players to run it

If me or you posted the master swordsman subclass not only would few DMs see it but many of those who do see it wouldn't allow it.

But Darrington Press didn't make a Master Swordsman fighter subclass.

 

[Umbran]

Because shockingly this is a forum discussing official D&D and I want to see official D&D do better instead of foisting their jobs on to everyone else all the time.

There is only so much one finite/useable ruleset can do for an effectiely infinite imagination space. Fixing any particular pet peeve is not generally "better", it typically just moves that finite coverage, leaving gaps elsewhere instead.

And, by the way, the last time they tried to stop "foisting", by closing off licenses, we threw the largest collective tantrum ever seen in RPGs. While maybe you might prefer they fix all your perceived issues internally, the community in general is actively against them doing it all themselves.

 

[Minigiant]

Perhaps, but that is a people-problem, not a rules-problem.

It's not a rules problem.

It is a people problem.

Not enough people in the industry make nonmagical content. And not enough people allow the few nonmagical content that is produced

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think you getting what I'm saying.

If Matt Mercer published the master swordsman subclass many DMs would allow players to run it

If me or you posted the master swordsman subclass not only would few DMs see it but many of those who do see it wouldn't allow it.

But Darrington Press didn't make a Master Swordsman fighter subclass.

That is a statement on the power of marketing and the conservatism of some DMs. It has nothing to do with the rules themselves, and I don't see what it has to do with your situation. If I may ask, what do you actually want?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not a rules problem.

It is a people problem.

Not enough people in the industry make nonmagical content. And not enough people allow the few nonmagical content that is produced

Enough people in the industry for what? I'm still not sure what your call to action is.

 

[Oofta]

This is an exercise in futility if you think anything written on this forum is going to impact the way WotC/Hasbro conducts their business.

The beloved 'oberani fallacy' isn't actually a fallacy - it's just a rejection of reality.

If anything changes it will be with the 2024 edition. I expect some small changes and tweaks, but nothing major from what we've seen. A handful of people on social media is an infinitesimally small drop in the bucket compared to the feedback they've gotten from playtests and surveys.

Which is why, while I empathize with people not getting what they want, I really don't understand why we need a dozen or more threads on the same topic.

EDIT: also why I recommend 3PP for options, even if I don't need them for this topic.

 

[Minigiant]

That is a statement on the power of marketing and the conservatism of some DMs. It has nothing to do with the rules themselves, and I don't see what it has to do with your situation. If I may ask, what do you actually want?

A master swordman subclass.
An expert marksman subclass.
A dagger virtuoso subclass
A spear specialist subclass.
An axe axe subclass
A hulking hurler subclass

The problem is that the rule set was designed to have open space so that other publishers can go into the open spaces purposely left open by Wizards....

But no one did go in that open space for Martials. Every major publisher who didn't rewrite the whole books is printing blatantly magical warriors and casters.

 

[Raiztt]

If anything changes it will be with the 2024 edition. I expect some small changes and tweaks, but nothing major from what we've seen. A handful of people on social media is an infinitesimally small drop in the bucket compared to the feedback they've gotten from playtests and surveys.

Which is why, while I empathize with people not getting what they want, I really don't understand why we need a dozen or more threads on the same topic.

EDIT: also why I recommend 3PP for options, even if I don't need them for this topic.

I will be absolutely floored if it is not a slightly tweaked 5e, on the scale of 3e -> 3.5e.

There is no way WotC is going to say "You know what, i know we're currently printing money with 5e but what if we shook it up tremendously and took huge risks for an incredibly vocal yet fractional-fractional subsection of the community".

 

[payn]

I will be absolutely floored if it is not a slightly tweaked 5e, on the scale of 3e -> 3.5e.

There is no way WotC is going to say "You know what, i know we're currently printing money with 5e but what if we shook it up tremendously and took huge risks for an incredibly vocal yet fractional-fractional subsection of the community".

What could go wrong?

 

[Corinnguard]

But no one did go in that open space for Martials

Level Up did something for Martials. They created the Combat Traditions and their maneuvers as the martial equivalent of spellcasting.