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
*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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New class concepts
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="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7400633" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>Wait, I am confused...</p><p></p><p><em>Not releasing new classes</em> is pretty much a way to deal with this problem. When you publish a new class in a supplement, you are pretty much guaranteed that only a minority of DMs and players will ever have that class available to use; after that, if additional books provide extras for such class, such material will be usable only by those who own the previous supplement with that class. Some people (probably those who buy nearly all books anyway) appreciate having a "books tree" or "books web" where each supplement crosses over with others, but other people really hate to buy a book that since the start seems to require others to fully usable. WotC kind of made it explicit at the beginning of 5e that they wanted the least number of required purchases, and in fact they even released Basic for free so even if someone only ever buys a single adventure, they can play it without buying any of the core books.</p><p></p><p>But these are not IMHO considerations that matter to WotC when it comes to class design, and with the SLOW releases of 5e there isn't much of a problem either. They are rather focusing on what major options (both narratively and tactically) they can add to the game, while minimizing the design cost. For that purpose, a subclass is almost always a better choice, mainly because it consists in a smaller set of features, something like 4-5 levels worth, so maybe 20-25% the design & playtest effort required by a class. A full class requires 20 levels worth of features, which means a high risk of ending up re-using a lot of stuff from other classes, thus decreasing the interest of customers.</p><p></p><p>It's not that they won't do it, in fact they will almost certainly publish the Mystic and Artificer classes. It's just that they are reserving this option to limited cases, when it seems difficult to fit all they want to fit under an existing class, and when the character concept is different enough from all the existing ones.</p><p></p><p>In parallel, they've also told us that they are exploring the design option of alternate class features. This is not going to change the narrative significantly, so it's mostly tactical variants, but it is related to the subject because it can be used in fact to substitute single levels, while subclasses are used to substitute multiple levels, to increase characters variety.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 7400633, member: 1465"] Wait, I am confused... [I]Not releasing new classes[/I] is pretty much a way to deal with this problem. When you publish a new class in a supplement, you are pretty much guaranteed that only a minority of DMs and players will ever have that class available to use; after that, if additional books provide extras for such class, such material will be usable only by those who own the previous supplement with that class. Some people (probably those who buy nearly all books anyway) appreciate having a "books tree" or "books web" where each supplement crosses over with others, but other people really hate to buy a book that since the start seems to require others to fully usable. WotC kind of made it explicit at the beginning of 5e that they wanted the least number of required purchases, and in fact they even released Basic for free so even if someone only ever buys a single adventure, they can play it without buying any of the core books. But these are not IMHO considerations that matter to WotC when it comes to class design, and with the SLOW releases of 5e there isn't much of a problem either. They are rather focusing on what major options (both narratively and tactically) they can add to the game, while minimizing the design cost. For that purpose, a subclass is almost always a better choice, mainly because it consists in a smaller set of features, something like 4-5 levels worth, so maybe 20-25% the design & playtest effort required by a class. A full class requires 20 levels worth of features, which means a high risk of ending up re-using a lot of stuff from other classes, thus decreasing the interest of customers. It's not that they won't do it, in fact they will almost certainly publish the Mystic and Artificer classes. It's just that they are reserving this option to limited cases, when it seems difficult to fit all they want to fit under an existing class, and when the character concept is different enough from all the existing ones. In parallel, they've also told us that they are exploring the design option of alternate class features. This is not going to change the narrative significantly, so it's mostly tactical variants, but it is related to the subject because it can be used in fact to substitute single levels, while subclasses are used to substitute multiple levels, to increase characters variety. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New class concepts
Top