D&D (2024) In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books

[EzekielRaiden]

Classes are not reduced to only one role anymore.

They never were to begin with.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As the word tank wasn't part of a quote from Perkins the insistence that he's clueless because of a thing he never said is a problem.

No, but the idea is explicitly credited to "the design team," in an article specifically discussing an interview with only Perkins. Where else are we to expect that this phrase came from? Unless you mean to assert that the author is lying and the attribution to "the design team" is simply a falsehood.

 

[Oofta]

I think it's a mistake to think that issues people bring up in any online forum has much value. First, people that are active online are an infinitesimally small sample size. Surveys will never cover 100% (and they don't need to) but we're a fraction of a percent. Second, people who are dissatisfied are generally going to be the squeaky wheels. People who are happy with things don't post about it nearly as much and, when they do, they get told that they just don't know what their talking about. It never changes any minds anyway, so why bother? Last, but not least, is confirmation bias. people pay more attention to and exaggerate the number of responses that agree with their opinion.

 

[Oofta]

No, but the idea is explicitly credited to "the design team," in an article specifically discussing an interview with only Perkins. Where else are we to expect that this phrase came from? Unless you mean to assert that the author is lying and the attribution to "the design team" is simply a falsehood.

Or the author is just using a common term that the dev team never used. Why are people trying to make a mountain out of this molehill?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Or the author is just using a common term that the dev team never used. Why are people trying to make a mountain out of this molehill?

The article, quoted verbatim, with the entire paragraph's contents:

"That feeds directly into the lack of new classes in these rulebooks. For Perkins, it's all about reducing overhead and complexity for new players. For anyone coming into D&D for the first time, 12 different classes (with a bonus one in the form of an Artificer) can be overwhelming enough as it is. Plus, the design team felt that there was already enough choice within a set 'role' – e.g. Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks offer three different approaches to being the party tank, while Clerics, Paladins, and Druids fulfill a similar function as the group's support. As soon as you venture out beyond those 12 core classes, Perkins says, you start to get repetition and choice paralysis."

It is not "making a mountain out of a molehill " to be frustrated by clear, albeit indirect, evidence that the design team legitimately doesn't grok the things they've actually put into their game.

 

[Shardstone]

I have no problem with people saying "I prefer" or "I wish they had". There's a few things that I wish they had done different. But you just spit out the same old bunch of words that boil down to "I don't like the direction they took so therefore they're crap designers." I don't know why they made the decisions they did, but calling it cowardice because you don't like the design is petty. If you think you're so much better at it, why not create your own game system?

I am trying to make my own game system, but idont have hasbro resources.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Trying to find the thread with the relevant UA feedback right now didn't fit in my Lunch break, but the numbers were solid: they didn't do much back and forth for Sorcerer.

I couldn't find them either, but I guess we'll see eventually - I really thought they said something about the Sorcerer getting a terrible reception in the pre-2024 survey then them revising it so it got like, barely over 70%. Certainly happened with one of the classes.

 

[Nikosandros]

Regardless of what specific words Perkins did or did not use, it feels quite weird to me that they consider the paladin a support class. I'm playing a paladin right now and she's the very definition of a tank. No support at all.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The article, quoted verbatim, with the entire paragraph's contents:

"That feeds directly into the lack of new classes in these rulebooks. For Perkins, it's all about reducing overhead and complexity for new players. For anyone coming into D&D for the first time, 12 different classes (with a bonus one in the form of an Artificer) can be overwhelming enough as it is. Plus, the design team felt that there was already enough choice within a set 'role' – e.g. Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks offer three different approaches to being the party tank, while Clerics, Paladins, and Druids fulfill a similar function as the group's support. As soon as you venture out beyond those 12 core classes, Perkins says, you start to get repetition and choice paralysis."

It is not "making a mountain out of a molehill " to be frustrated by clear, albeit indirect, evidence that the design team legitimately doesn't grok the things they've actually put into their game.

Yeah unless that's a misquote that's a fairly bizarre thing to say - the idea that the Monk is a tank and the Paladin is support is truly demented, so I hope it is a misquote.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Regardless of what specific words Perkins did or did not use, it feels quite weird to me that they consider the paladin a support class. I'm playing a paladin right now and she's the very definition of a tank. No support at all.

Yeah it's arguably the best tank in 5E. Particularly as it has a ton of defences, more than say, the Fighter, by a country mile, and can heal the hell out of itself, significantly more powerfully than an actual support caster likely can them in most cases (certainly prior to 2024's healing spell changes). Plus it can cast defensive spells. It's particularly an odd thing to say because most Paladin subclasses make it better at killing or tanking, not supporting, too.