D&D 5E D&D Next Blog: Beyond Class & Race

[Steely_Dan]

What about this every class that's been in a PHB 1 business?

 

[Blackwarder]

I, for one, will be glad if three years down the road the game won't have gazilion classes, each trying to be more cool than the previous one.

Warder

 

[YRUSirius]

Yeah, me too. I'd like to have as few classes as possible, makes the core game more elegant. 4E had a few classes too many.

Give us more themes (subclasses) instead. I could even live with the 4 base classes alone and the more classic extended classes (barbarian, bard, druid, ranger, etc...) as themes (subclasses) of the 4 base classes.

-YRUSirius

 

[Dungeonosophy]

What about this every class that's been in a PHB 1 business?

I agree that's a reasonable basis for deciding what will fit in the 5e PHB. (I'll be suprised if all the specialty wizard classes from the 2e PHB make it into the 5e core though. Perhaps only Illusionist might make the cut.)

But what I'm not sure about is having a whole bunch of space in the PHB (and a lot of good "class names") taken up by by slightly flavorful pre-gen skill/feat builds.

 

[YRUSirius]

But what I'm not sure about is having a whole bunch of space in the PBH (and a lot of good "class names") taken up by by slightly flavorful pre-gen skill/feat builds.

Better than having skills and feats without any order or without any flavor attached to them whatsoever. Just cold mechanics are... well, cold.

-YRUSirius

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Better than having skills and feats without any order or without any flavor attached to them whatsoever. Just cold mechanics are... well, cold.

Well, I'd warm up to the idea more if I knew that the 5e design team had really compiled and researched all the 2e kits (and similar sub-class options from the other editions), and distilled them systematically, instead of thinking up Themes in an ad hoc manner.

A similar distillation process was undertaken in the "2.5e" Player's Options book, which recast the vast array of kits from the "Complete Book" line into a streamlined set of kits with more equitable mechanics.

 

[Sunseeker]

Well, I'd warm up to the idea more if I knew that the 5e design team had really compiled and researched all the 2e kits (and similar sub-class options from the other editions), and distilled them systematically, instead of thinking up Themes in an ad hoc manner.

A similar distillation process was undertaken in the "2.5e" Player's Options book, which recast the vast array of kits from the "Complete Book" line into a streamlined set of kits with more equitable mechanics.

I'd rather the design team innovated new things rather than renovated old things in some manner. Drawing from previous content is good, but if it's too obvious that it's just a port of old content that's been wrapped up in new language, it'll be even worse.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The WotC designers are talented enough to take any class/profession name and turn it into a full-fledged 4e or 5e class. Ultimately, the decision isn't a design limitation, but a space limitation.

I disagree. After the horrendous class bloat of 3e and 4e, the designers are focusing on fewer, broader classes. I think they even said as much in the PAX East panel. It is definitely a design decision, and a popular one I might add.

 

[Greg K]

.and a popular one I might add.

And you are basing this upon?

 

[Blackwarder]

And you are basing this upon?

Probably on the fact that it's something that pop up in threads quite regularly.

Warder