D&D 5E D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.

[Ruin Explorer]

if I’m happy?

This is the issue though, they're not. Or rather, some significant number of them are significantly LESS happy than they SHOULD be.

People stick to certain classes even when they're not very happy with them. Even when they're bored or annoyed. Maybe they shouldn't, but they absolutely do, and not just in TT RPGs, also in any kind of RPG.

Part of it is like, for a lot of people, just playing a TT RPG is huge fun, and that obscures issues mechanical issues that aren't crippling.

Perhaps I underestimate the determination of people to play “cat person rogues” in the face of grinding disappointment.

You do. You absolutely do. And that's actually a good example! If cat people (esp. kemonomimi - i.e. human-ish face, but catlike ears/tail, rather than straight-up furry-ish cat people like Tabaxi) are in the game, there is a certain kind of player who is going to play them come hell or high water (Tieflings also show this, but luckily have been pretty good for a long time, only in 3E were they a disaster because they had +1 LA and bad stat mods - a penalty to Charisma! On Tieflings! The devil not known for his charm to 3E writers, I guess). And yeah I know from personal experience there are people who play Rogues because they play Rogues.

But its like when you pile bonuses and penalties, if people are getting +10 happiness from "Playing D&D", and +2 from "Getting to roleplay a Cat person" and +2 from "Getting to roleplay a Rogue", even if they're getting -6 happiness from "My character sucks mechanically", they're still on +8 happiness.

Compare that maybe to the wizard who only gets +8 happiness from "Playing D&D", doesn't gain any particular thrill from roleplaying a specific class/race (so +0), but gets +4 happiness "being able to push the hell out of Wizard mechanics" and he's clearly happier.

Both are still in the positive and it's not like one is weeping at the table. It's just that, if their class didn't suck, they'd be a lot happier. This isn't theoretical for me, I've played with the same people, many of whom stuck to the same classes for decades, and seen it happen.

Pillar utility seems like a whole nother thing though.

The reason I feel it's not is because a lot of the boredom/unhappiness comes from the lack of pillar utility, in my experience anywa

 

[DEFCON 1]

For example, had a player drop an Animate Object spell for the first time in my game this week. Now, this caused the game to grind to a freaking halt - needed to get four tokens to represent the animated creatures, add them to the initiative, then the bard player has take move and attack actions for four creatures.

After using my Animate Objects one time, the DM asked me very nicely if I could change the spell for something else.

LOL! And yet even despite this... there are players out there who insist that a Summoner class is a necessary addition to the game.

 

[James Gasik]

LOL! And yet even despite this... there are players out there who insist that a Summoner class is a necessary addition to the game.

There's a certain itch that can be scratched by playing a character who has minions at their command, or can summon up a powerful entity to fight for them.

The issues are generally that, unless you're very conservative about this (the minion is no stronger than you are, you have to use your actions to control it), this becomes a very effective strategy, simply due to action economy.

My gang of tiny objects didn't do a lot of damage singly, but they had a great bonus to hit, and the damage they did each turn in aggregate was noticeable enough that my DM asked me to stop- and he felt bad, since I'd gone to a lot of effort to make custom things to animate (I went to a local dollmaker and had them make fairy dolls out of sturdy materials so I could reuse them), and I'd been struggling with my spell list as a Sorcerer, plus it was obvious I was having fun. But this tactic was so effective Animate Objects was the only spell I'd needed to cast for a major encounter!

I didn't fully agree with this assessment, but I could see his point. Personally, I think it had more to do with him being loath to "waste" attacks on my doll minions, which has always been another issue with minion-mancy; extra bodies to suck up attacks.

It's a shame, because summoner would be a fun archetype, but the additional complexity can be detrimental to the game. You can't just add more bodies to a fight because a guy has minions he can add with a class feature!

Unless you turn it around and have an enemy summoner, at which point, the encounter might take a very long time...

 

[billd91]

LOL! And yet even despite this... there are players out there who insist that a Summoner class is a necessary addition to the game.

Of course. It's not an unreasonable fantasy archetype to include in a role playing game. The question is whether every table is well-equipped or willing to handle it. For those who aren't, they should omit the options whether a summoner class, or spells that summon/animate minions. But for tables that are well-equipped or willing to handle them, is there a reason they shouldn't have those options?

 

[Xamnam]

Of course. It's not an unreasonable fantasy archetype to include in a role playing game. The question is whether every table is well-equipped or willing to handle it. For those who aren't, they should omit the options whether a summoner class, or spells that summon/animate minions. But for tables that are well-equipped or willing to handle them, is there a reason they shouldn't have those options?

Now I'm just thinking about the turmoil that would ensure with a class included in the core book explicitly labeled as variant/optional.

 

[darjr]

Now I'm just thinking about the turmoil that would ensure with a class included in the core book explicitly labeled as variant/optional.

What? Like the bard?

 

[Xamnam]

What? Like the bard?

Well, it was sparked in response to the idea of a Summoner class. Something that generally works best if the table has explicitly opted into the constraints that generates.

But now I'm also laughing at the theoretical response if the 2024 PHB comes out and Bards are inexplicably called out as optional.

 

[Minigiant]

LOL! And yet even despite this... there are players out there who insist that a Summoner class is a necessary addition to the game.

The problem isn't Summoning but how Summoning spells work and are designed.

It's a case where "Everything not swordswing nor daggerstabbing is a spell" doesn't work. A new idea is need and you as a design have to actively fight tradition to make it work.

 

[Haplo781]

We had a pretty good solution a decade ago. Just sayin'.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

IIRC, 4e Essentials had a feat that allowed you to substitute any other stat (except maybe Con?) for basic melee attacks, although you only got half stat bonus to damage. This paired well with the Essentials fighter class which didn't have daily/encounter attacks in the same way the "typical" 4e fighter did, but instead had abilities modifying their basic attack.

I am 100% behind 5.5/1D&D makeing attacks all based on ANY stat you would like.