Incenjucar said:
Supporting existing classes with redundant material is, to me, less useful and interesting than creating new classes, which I may find more interesting than current ones. I have little to no interest in wizards, so their absurd amount of material is a waste of space for me.
Fair enough. Someone who doesn't like Fighters could probably argue the same thing.
But "new classes" don't necessarily solve that problem. You might find them more interesting, but you also might not. The same is true for every D&D player.
And if you DON'T find them more interesting, that's much more space spent on something that isn't useful for you (10 pages of powers, 2 pages of builds, 2 pages of feats, 3 pages of PPs, 2 pages of EDs, 3 pages of racial mateiral...) than it would be on a new Wizard build that isn't useful to you (roughly 1-5 pages, depending on how complicated/essentialized the build is).
And those people who DO find the new class more interesting still are left without "support," since making a new build, a handful of feats, a PP, ED, etc., eats up even more space in future documents.
And then you find their additional material also useless when WotC caves and produces stuff for them (which is almost inevitably how I'll feel when the Runepriest or Seeker gets more support.
).
Meanwhile, with a build, WotC has shown their willingness to branch out of the narrow concept of class mechanically, making things that might even interest folks who aren't a fan of the original class. Hexblade warlocks are quite different mechanically from classic warlocks. The Slayer is quite different from the Weaponmaster. The Essentials Hunter is half a power source and a role apart from the original ranger. Mages and Implementeers have some more subtle differences in theme. The classes are conceptually similar (warlocks still make pacts, fighters still are melee champs, rangers are still wilderness folk), so if that's your problem, then I suppose the build won't help, but if it doesn't, that's at least a lot less word count spent on a build you won't use than on a class that you won't use.
"Bad idea" is entirely subjective.
Entirely? Man, I think we'll find some broad agreement that, say, sticking a fork in a toaster is a "bad idea." It's a softer science, though, I admit.
In this case, "bad idea" means that I think WotC stands to loose a lot more than they would gain in the publication of most new classes at this point in the game. There's certainly still a role for new classes, and space for them, but at this point I think any new class needs to pass a much more rigorous approval process than the Psionic classes did, let alone the Seeker and the Runepriest. It needs to be shown that the concept you are trying to model
needs to be a class. There still are things that fall into that place (the Vampire is an example of a new class that probably couldn't be done with a broader mechanic...and look at how many people are saying it needs more support!), but a case needs to be made for it.
Certainly I don't support book space being wasted on "eladrin wizards with orb specialization and a trick knee," but say two feats per build, and four general feats per class, and then all the broad stuff that is actually interesting enough to bother with should be fine.
"All the broad stuff" includes page upon page of powers that no other character in the game can access, items that enhance specific class features, races that support the class's ability score spread, PPs and EDs designed with the class in mind....
"Support." At the end of the day, that's a whole lot of space that isn't being used for anyone other than the few people who play that class.
Classes in 4E being narrow just means there's need of more of them to fill all the idea holes, so I don't see how that helps your assertion. I'm not saying they should make classes just for the sake of making classes, but I see a significant number of holes that they could best fill with classes.
My assertion is that, in general, new classes have a low usefulness
age count ratio, and this makes publishing new ones a bad idea unless it is carefully vetted.
So if the class is narrow, then it confirms that it uses up a lot of pages to do nothing for the vast majority of players. This is kind of a problem, since it means that all the pages spent introducing this new class are wasted on the vast majority of readers.
If the holes even need to be filled, and they can't be filled well with variations on existing classes, perhaps a new class would be useful. But I really don't see holes that need to be filled. I also see "new classes" that should be variations on existing classes.
Builds are part of a class. More classes produces more room for builds that would strain class ideas. There are plenty of class ideas left to explore.
Sure. My position was never an extremist version of the least amount of classes conceivable. But for each of those class ideas, there should be a question: "Does it really need to be its own class?" Does it really need 4 builds, some feats, PPs, EDs, racial support, and 400 or so powers? Or can it be successfully modeled with a tweak to an existing class? Like, a different set of basic abilities a la the Slayer or the eHunter? How different from a Fighter, or a Cleric, or a Wizard, or a Rogue is it, really?
AbdulAlhazred said:
Frankly I think if there IS a 5e at some point, the last thing you'll see is dozens of classes with different lists of powers. I think you'll have basically something like 8 or 10 classes, tops and that will be just about right.
Personally, what I think would be kind of interesting, is one class per power source, with a "subclass" that defines role and specific mechanics.
Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Swordmages, Artificers....all share one "Arcane Class" list of powers. But Wizards gain (say) Metamagic abilities, and Warlocks gain Pact abilities, and Sorcerers gain blood abilities, and Swordmages gain defensive abilities, and Artificers gain enhancement abilities that relate to that list of powers.
Or think of Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Warlords, etc. with one "Martial Class" list powers. Fighters can mark after an attack. Rogues gain Sneak Attack when they have CA. Rangers can use two attacks in one round. Warlords grant HP with their attacks. Etc.
Not saying this is what should happen, just that it would help cut down on the piles and piles of redundant powers, and it would help address the "Why do I need to be a Fighter to Disarm?!" issue. If
Disarm is a Level 2 Martial Power, then anyone who is trained in a martial class (those who are skilled warriors by definition) could pick it up. If you're not a skilled warrior (if you're learning magic or praying to a god), you won't get it, which makes a certain amount of sense: only trained warriors can do it effectively.
