Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9300142" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>I just don't buy it. You don't design classes like the 5E Bard, the 5E Warlock, the 5E Paladin and so on, all modern and interesting designs, then suddenly do a 180 and revert to 3E-style design for a few classes for no clear reason (I should note that Warlock and Paladin weren't even classes I liked before 5E - I was actually kind of sighing that Warlock was included at all until I saw the design). Likewise the Fighter and Rogue, whilst perhaps not ideal, are significantly modernized, as is the Barbarian. The Cleric and Wizard are more or less "as expected".</p><p></p><p>And it's no accident 3 out of the 4 "reverted to 3E" classes are widely (and accurately) regarded as some of the least effective classes and all four as the least well-designed classes in 5E, either - presumably because they didn't get the attention and thought put into them that other 5E classes did get. Sorcerer that's particularly obvious - they were clearly thinking down one direction, then suddenly reverted, despite, as far as literally anyone can tell, feedback being strongly positive on the DND Next Sorcerer (AFAICT they've never explained this, but maybe I've forgotten). Did the Monk/Druid/Ranger get DND Next playtests at all? I forget at this point.</p><p></p><p>Calling the 5E Sorcerer's design "change for change's sake" is absolutely as insulting as anything I'm saying, too - it certainly didn't look like change for change's sake - it looked carefully considered.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's obviously untrue and unfair if you actually read my posts, and I know you do. Loads of 5E design "isn't the choices I personally want" - like 30% of it! So trying to make a case that I'm calling "cowardice" just because of that is obviously and patently false, and rather disappointing, frankly. I don't think, for example, the HD-based healing system is the result of a panic about going too far, nor do I think the plain-jane design of the Wizard is, nor do I think the almost excessively generous default Long Rest system nor excessively penalized Short Rest system is the result of anything like that.</p><p></p><p>I'm talking about one very specific and unusual thing that happened - there are three "plausible" causes I can see:</p><p></p><p>1) They got scared of going too far with redesigns and reverted to 3E approaches without really considering how they would fit into 5E - this explains why they're all clumsier designs too.</p><p></p><p>2) Someone at WotC put their foot down and just overruled everything else (other designers, surveys, etc.) - this seems to have happened occasionally, so it's possibility.</p><p></p><p>3) They ran out of time, and reverted simply because they didn't have time to design new/better mechanics for these classes - it's a little hard to explain the Sorcerer with this, but we know from WotC comments that they did basically run out of time on the design of both 4E and 5E, and it's possible this was the cause. It tallies with a lot of other design issues in 5E, particularly the dubious quality and confused-seeming DMG (relative to other D&D DMGs, almost certainly including the 2024 DMG, which I expect to be pretty great if I'm honest), so I can't rule it out.</p><p></p><p>Some combination of all three could also be true - i.e. they saw they were running out of time, had some potential options for how to deal with it, and decided or were told that reverting to 3E-style designs was the best way to use the time left to them before it had to go to print.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9300142, member: 18"] I just don't buy it. You don't design classes like the 5E Bard, the 5E Warlock, the 5E Paladin and so on, all modern and interesting designs, then suddenly do a 180 and revert to 3E-style design for a few classes for no clear reason (I should note that Warlock and Paladin weren't even classes I liked before 5E - I was actually kind of sighing that Warlock was included at all until I saw the design). Likewise the Fighter and Rogue, whilst perhaps not ideal, are significantly modernized, as is the Barbarian. The Cleric and Wizard are more or less "as expected". And it's no accident 3 out of the 4 "reverted to 3E" classes are widely (and accurately) regarded as some of the least effective classes and all four as the least well-designed classes in 5E, either - presumably because they didn't get the attention and thought put into them that other 5E classes did get. Sorcerer that's particularly obvious - they were clearly thinking down one direction, then suddenly reverted, despite, as far as literally anyone can tell, feedback being strongly positive on the DND Next Sorcerer (AFAICT they've never explained this, but maybe I've forgotten). Did the Monk/Druid/Ranger get DND Next playtests at all? I forget at this point. Calling the 5E Sorcerer's design "change for change's sake" is absolutely as insulting as anything I'm saying, too - it certainly didn't look like change for change's sake - it looked carefully considered. That's obviously untrue and unfair if you actually read my posts, and I know you do. Loads of 5E design "isn't the choices I personally want" - like 30% of it! So trying to make a case that I'm calling "cowardice" just because of that is obviously and patently false, and rather disappointing, frankly. I don't think, for example, the HD-based healing system is the result of a panic about going too far, nor do I think the plain-jane design of the Wizard is, nor do I think the almost excessively generous default Long Rest system nor excessively penalized Short Rest system is the result of anything like that. I'm talking about one very specific and unusual thing that happened - there are three "plausible" causes I can see: 1) They got scared of going too far with redesigns and reverted to 3E approaches without really considering how they would fit into 5E - this explains why they're all clumsier designs too. 2) Someone at WotC put their foot down and just overruled everything else (other designers, surveys, etc.) - this seems to have happened occasionally, so it's possibility. 3) They ran out of time, and reverted simply because they didn't have time to design new/better mechanics for these classes - it's a little hard to explain the Sorcerer with this, but we know from WotC comments that they did basically run out of time on the design of both 4E and 5E, and it's possible this was the cause. It tallies with a lot of other design issues in 5E, particularly the dubious quality and confused-seeming DMG (relative to other D&D DMGs, almost certainly including the 2024 DMG, which I expect to be pretty great if I'm honest), so I can't rule it out. Some combination of all three could also be true - i.e. they saw they were running out of time, had some potential options for how to deal with it, and decided or were told that reverting to 3E-style designs was the best way to use the time left to them before it had to go to print. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books
Top