D&D 5E Class Inclusion Criteria (general discussion)

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

My paladin uses a short sword. All the enemies I've smote with it tell me "damage die size doesn't matter".

 

[steeldragons]

Because that's D&D, man.

True story-

Back when he was writing the PHB, Gary Gygax (hallowed be his name) was going to have two subclasses for the Fighter-

Aragorn
Katana

But, alas, some n00b came up to him at a Gencon and was all like, "Dude, you're like the guy who makes the funny elf books. Right on! Hey ... hehehehehehe ... so, my character totally has a Long Sword, right, hehehehehehe, and he gets to make fun of Eric's short sword. That's all Eric can handle, man. No succubus for Eric. Mr. Short Sword. He's better than the magic user, though, with his dagger. AMIRITE ELF GUY?"

Gygax was so offended at the improper humor, that he decided right then and there to punish the gaming community. And he did so by calling the Aragorn class the Ranger (thus spawning Drizz't ... thanks, EGG!) and by banishing the Katana and putting in the Paladin.

From this, we can learn the following lessons:

1. D&D is super serious.
2. Katanas win everything, all the time, even if they aren't in the PHB.
3. Paladins are the root cause of all that is terrible in D&D.

Oh, for the love of Elrond...<facepalm>

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

On a side note, to sort of expand a statement I made in my OP, it is of my personal opinion that if one were to stop playing a game because a certain class or race existed, then I think that's being incredibly immature and silly.

De gustibus non est disputandum. People don't have to justify what they find enjoyable or not enjoyable. If Steve Jackson Games starts taking GURPS in a new direction that I don't find enjoyable, I don't have to play their new versions of GURPS. I can play GURPS 3E instead, or I can decide that I'm tired of GURPS and would rather play Shadowrun, or Battleship, or racketball. None of those responses would be immature or silly.

Your personal opinion on how people ought to act isn't "immature" or "silly", but it's unrealistic and perhaps unreasonable.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, my tongue was firmly in-cheek, but... sort of?

Dualazi described my view back a few posts pretty well.

The point is, more mechanically than thematically, because you can pretty much apply any theme to a mechanical chassis that is appropriate.

Part of it is that "Fighters" don't really have a thematic identity. They have TONS.

But, sure, if you want a Paladin, a Knight in heavy armor with a code of honor (role-play) that can cast some divine spells, smite (currently spells), lay-on-hands (story-wise same as Cure Wounds. You touch 'em, they get better)... How is that not a Fighter/Cleric?

How could you make a Fighter/Cleroc that DOESN'T seem like a Paladin? (Okay, I could do it, but I'm good at refluffing.)

Trivially. Make him a priest of Set, someone who does miracles for the Pharoah when he's not busy tormenting the Israelite slaves, and a part-time warrior on the side.

The tough part will be differentiating him from a Fighter/Necromancer. But differentiating him from a Paladin is dead simple.

(Yes, I am pretty cynical about how mosts "priests" of polytheistic gods throughout Earth history and fantasy literature have actually functioned in society. Fraud, graft, deception, avarice, abuse of power, you name it. Maybe I read too many dark fantasy books.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

De gustibus non est disputandum. People don't have to justify what they find enjoyable or not enjoyable. If Steve Jackson Games starts taking GURPS in a new direction that I don't find enjoyable, I don't have to play their new versions of GURPS. I can play GURPS 3E instead, or I can decide that I'm tired of GURPS and would rather play Shadowrun, or Battleship, or racketball. None of those responses would be immature or silly.

Your personal opinion on how people ought to act isn't "immature" or "silly", but it's unrealistic and perhaps unreasonable.

If someone enjoys playing 5e, and 5e puts out a warlord class (that the player can completely ignore) and that player refused to play that game again, then I think that's silly and immature. And I stand by that. People can disagree based on semantics, but it won't change how or why I think it's silly and immature. Just like someone saying they will no longer read any Marvel comics they previously enjoyed because Marvel made Iron man a girl (a comic that person never read to begin with and has no impact on their favorite X-Men comics), I would think that's pretty silly and immature as well.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If someone enjoys playing 5e, and 5e puts out a warlord class (that the player can completely ignore) and that player refused to play that game again, then I think that's silly and immature. And I stand by that. People can disagree based on semantics, but it won't change how or why I think it's silly and immature. Just like someone saying they will no longer read any Marvel comics they previously enjoyed because Marvel made Iron man a girl (a comic that person never read to begin with and has no impact on their favorite X-Men comics), I would think that's pretty silly and immature as well.

But in real life that's not how it actually works. It's more often a case of, "I've been playing 5E for a couple of years, and I'd like to try something new... I took a look at the new 5E expansion from WotC, but it's full of warlords and class bloat and I don't like the direction WotC is taking 5E. Maybe I'll give the Dresden Files RPG a shot."

WotC needs to be cognizant of such things when designing new stuff, because "5E players who are looking for something new" are a huge part of their business. "5E players who are happy with the core PHB + MM + homebrewed everything else" aren't really relevant.

Bear in mind that 5E has attracted a lot of old-school players (including DMs) who skipped 3E and 4E but picked up 5E specifically because of its (relative) simplicity and (moderate) faithfulness to old-school conventions. Class bloat has the potential to turn those players off in a way that adventure modules/paths do not.

 

[Zardnaar]

Game already has to many classes. 8 is about right with 10 or 11 as an upper limit IMHO.