D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A 11/22/13

[Mistwell]

As long as we get about the key five-six at launch (Wild, celestial, draconic, fey, infernal/abssal) I don't care to wait for the more exotic ones, but if core only has two, well that is a no sell really. I would argue that with a good layout ou don't need more than two or three pages to cover about a dozen bloodlines (and the same goes for all subclasses).

I get it, you love that class. But...that's too many at launch. We really don't need that many flavors of that class right away. Half that would be fine. Wild, Draconic, Infernal. That's all you need at launch.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd be happy with a trio- Draconic & Infernal sounds good to me, but I'd prefer something tied to the Fey or the Far Realms as opposed to Wild*- plus templates/guidelines for a bit of D.I.Y. (especially if its the ones the designers are using).








* correct me if I'm wrong, weren't they also recasting the Hexblade as a martial Warlock?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd be happy with just a sorcerous trio- Draconic & Infernal sounds good to me, but I'd prefer something tied to the Fey or the Far Realms as opposed to Wild*- in he initial release, plus templates/guidelines for a bit of D.I.Y. (especially if it's the ones the designers are using).








* correct me if I'm wrong, weren't they also recasting the Hexblade as a martial Warlock?

 

[MoonSong]

I get it, you love that class. But...that's too many at launch. We really don't need that many flavors of that class right away. Half that would be fine. Wild, Draconic, Infernal. That's all you need at launch.

No, not enough at launch, I would argue each class must have at least 6 subclasses in core, and that still feels a little rigid. If they withhold key options for phb2 again they risk the edition will fail.

 

[Mistwell]

No, not enough at launch, I would argue each class must have at least 6 subclasses in core, and that still feels a little rigid. If they withhold key options for phb2 again they risk the edition will fail.

Why? Why on earth do we need 6 subclasses for each class at launch? The whole point is this is supposed to be simple. Easy for new players to pick up. Not a huge tome, not dense verbiage, not something prone to cause option-paralysis. There are not six "key" options for every class. Not everything that was in past books was "key". Even stuff in prior PHBs wasn't "key".

 

[MoonSong]

Why? Why on earth do we need 6 subclasses for each class at launch? The whole point is this is supposed to be simple. Easy for new players to pick up. Not a huge tome, not dense verbiage, not something prone to cause option-paralysis.

We know the basic game -the one targeted at new and casual players- is going to have just big four, no subclass choice, no feats no complex suff, the phb -and I argue only phb not phb1 nor first phb- instead needs all bells and whistles to give existing players enough options at launch to desire to convert - a core only Next game needs to be able to compare to a core only 2e, 3.5, PF or heck 3.0 game, instead of having the lousy amount of choice a core only 4e game has- having to wait two years to have enough options will decrease the aceptance level of the edition.

 

[Mistwell]

We know the basic game -the one targeted at new and casual players- is going to have just big four, no subclass choice, no feats no complex suff, the phb -and I argue only phb not phb1 nor first phb- instead needs all bells and whistles to give existing players enough options at launch to desire to convert - a core only Next game needs to be able to compare to a core only 2e, 3.5, PF or heck 3.0 game, instead of having the lousy amount of choice a core only 4e game has- having to wait two years to have enough options will decrease the aceptance level of the edition.

I don't recall 6 flavors of sorcerer in any prior edition at launch, do you?

I really don't think lack of 6 subclasses for each core class in the initial 4e PHB was the issue with 4e. I think you're being a bit too greedy with what you want at launch. NO edition has tried 6 flavors of every class at launch. Not even close to that.

 

[MoonSong]

I don't recall 6 flavors of sorcerer in any prior edition at launch, do you?

I really don't think lack of 6 subclasses for each core class in the initial 4e PHB was the issue with 4e. I think you're being a bit too greedy with what you want at launch. NO edition has tried 6 flavors of every class at launch. Not even close to that.

seriously? because as far as I can tell 2e had lots of spheres, and 3.x dozens of domains in the phb. And 2e gave you the basics to have eight extra flavors of mage, and 3.x gave us the same nine specialist flavors. Just six domains and six schools would be incomplete in that regard (and not even taking into account the bladesigner-like subclass designers promised) son you see I'm not being greedy, I'm settling for less than I've got in previous books.

Now yes, in 3.0 and 3.5 sorcerer bloodlines were fluff only in the phb and by virtue of not having noticeable effects on the sorcerer they could be anything you wanted or not care about them at all, since they didn't define your sorcerer they were really unlimited in scope. When 4e made them more important, they became something character defining and you no longer got to ignore them or have them be anything you wanted, so going from whatever you fancied to just two was a straightjacket, the pathfinder people understood this, that is why they put ten bloodlines in the corebook. Now, it all depends on how big bloodlines are, they can be as small as a few extra spells, proficiencies, and one or two minor abilities, no need for them to tack on extra subsystems and change the way you fight -like comba styles or favored enemies-, if they are small enough there can be room for more of them, which in turn can be good because by being less levels of them, there is more room for metamagic and abilty score increases.

Edit: And lack of options at launch WAS san issue for 4e. A party of 3.5 core only Gnome Bard, Half-elf Druid, Half orc Barbarian, Sorcerer and Monk that otherwise would have given it a chance at launch and convert their campaign had to wait one year for their classes and races to be available (except poor monk), and if the sorcerer didn't fit in the draconic/wild divide, then PF started to look more juicy in comparison

 

[Mistwell]

seriously? because as far as I can tell 2e had lots of spheres, and 3.x dozens of domains in the phb. [/quote

For some classes, never for ALL classes.

And 2e gave you the basics to have eight extra flavors of mage, and 3.x gave us the same nine specialist flavors. Just six domains and six schools would be incomplete in that regard (and not even taking into account the bladesigner-like subclass designers promised) son you see I'm not being greedy, I'm settling for less than I've got in previous books.

Again, none of the prior initial PHBs had six subclasses for ALL the classes. You're pretending that a few classes having many subclasses equates with all of them having that.

And don't call me son.

Now yes, in 3.0 and 3.5 sorcerer bloodlines were fluff only in the phb and by virtue of not having noticeable effects on the sorcerer they could be anything you wanted or not care about them at all, since they didn't define your sorcerer they were really unlimited in scope.

Right. So, none of that is "key", and none of that means they need more than three subclasses in the PHB. I am glad, despite the baloney of you posturing above, you agree with me that no prior PHB had 6 subclasses for every class. And they don't need that with this edition either. Three subclasses is fine for each class. You can do more where appropriate, but you don't need it for all the classes, and you don't need it for sorcerer.

 

[Mistwell]

Edit: And lack of options at launch WAS san issue for 4e. A party of 3.5 core only Gnome Bard, Half-elf Druid, Half orc Barbarian, Sorcerer and Monk that otherwise would have given it a chance at launch and convert their campaign had to wait one year for their classes and races to be available (except poor monk), and if the sorcerer didn't fit in the draconic/wild divide, then PF started to look more juicy in comparison

Reply to your edit. Wow, so did you change the word subclasses to options intentionally, or was it just a mistake?

I said, "I really don't think lack of 6 subclasses for each core class in the initial 4e PHB was the issue with 4e." None of your reply has anything to do with that statement. I never said 4e couldn't have used more options in the PHB in terms of classes and races, I said I don't think it was lack of SIX SUBCLASSES for EACH CLASS that was the issue.

Between you calling me son, and then strawmanning me like, I can see this debate is going downhill fast.