Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7400628" data-attributes="member: 20564">Discuss?With a stated goal of reuniting the split fan base (4e, 3.x, PF, and old school), the classes they published in the very first core book needed to both ooze with nostalgia and classic D&amp;D-ness as well as cover all of the traditional bases so that people could envision their favorite character in 5e.&nbsp; So what is published in that first core player's book has other aspects then just &quot;make a great game&quot;, it was &quot;make a great version of D&amp;D that appeals to all the old players as well as new.&quot;Since then, they haven't had too many chances to create new classes, but there is at least one counter-example to points #1 &amp; 2 - the Artificer.&nbsp; If you consider that much UA also has a goal, trying out material for later publishing, then you see it is also directed by their publishing schedule - and when maintaining a slow schedule that focused on the FR there isn't a design need to add new classes.Now, there is a supporting example for #1&amp;2 - the Mystic.&nbsp; With revision 3 it does look like they are trying to shoehorn all psionics into a single class.&nbsp; I wonder if part of this is also because of multiclassing - if they don't want to have to deal with multiclassing between several psionic classes and how that works out.&nbsp; But that's just thought, not an excuse.#3 was very true, but since monster design moved away from PC design starting at 4e, I don't know if it's really a valid question to ask anymore.&nbsp; I'm sure you can come across an elven bladesinger NPC in the FR, even if that's from the SCAG supplement.&nbsp; I think that not needing the DM to own a specific book in order to have an NPC of a particular type frees up their usage elsewhere.&nbsp; At this point, it's really a question if the class is iconic enough that an adventure creator features it somewhere.&nbsp; (And, to my sadness, many subclasses aren't bursting with flavor enough to do that.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 7400628, member: 20564"] Discuss? With a stated goal of reuniting the split fan base (4e, 3.x, PF, and old school), the classes they published in the very first core book needed to both ooze with nostalgia and classic D&D-ness as well as cover all of the traditional bases so that people could envision their favorite character in 5e. So what is published in that first core player's book has other aspects then just "make a great game", it was "make a great version of D&D that appeals to [I]all[/I] the old players as well as new." Since then, they haven't had too many chances to create new classes, but there is at least one counter-example to points #1 & 2 - the Artificer. If you consider that much UA also has a goal, trying out material for later publishing, then you see it is also directed by their publishing schedule - and when maintaining a slow schedule that focused on the FR there isn't a design need to add new classes. Now, there is a supporting example for #1&2 - the Mystic. With revision 3 it does look like they are trying to shoehorn all psionics into a single class. I wonder if part of this is also because of multiclassing - if they don't want to have to deal with multiclassing between several psionic classes and how that works out. But that's just thought, not an excuse. #3 was very true, but since monster design moved away from PC design starting at 4e, I don't know if it's really a valid question to ask anymore. I'm sure you can come across an elven bladesinger NPC in the FR, even if that's from the SCAG supplement. I think that not needing the DM to own a specific book in order to have an NPC of a particular type frees up their usage elsewhere. At this point, it's really a question if the class is iconic enough that an adventure creator features it somewhere. (And, to my sadness, many subclasses aren't bursting with flavor enough to do that.) [/QUOTE]

Verification