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 Classes for 5e. Is anything missing?
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8522477" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>So, the only things that should be published are the ones <em>your</em> table needs?</p><p></p><p>Because that's the implication of what you're saying here--that WotC should only publish things for <em>your</em> needs, not anyone else's. I know that the more probable <em>intent</em> of your statement is "they should only make things that <em>most people</em> need," but...well, there's some big problems with that, even if I grant you that charitable reading.</p><p></p><p>The first is the word "need." Properly speaking, nobody ever <em>needs</em> anything. Necessity is a bad standard for <em>leisure-time activities</em>. We don't, for example, determine meal plans purely based on what humans <em>need</em> for nutrition, otherwise we'd all be eating standardized nutrient supplements. Instead, we make meal plans based on what we <em>want</em>, which includes things like varying flavors or different sources of protein, avoiding disliked flavors, that sort of thing.</p><p></p><p>Second, if the only official provisions are the ones generically needed....then they're going to need to <em>be</em> generic, and that's exactly what people are complaining about now. And what I called out earlier with the Morton's Fork: if a class is specific, it shouldn't be offered because then a more general class can be offered instead; if a class is general, well then it should be folded into whatever the most-similar and more-traditional class is, since there's no need for two generalists that cover the same space. Why should WotC <em>always</em> avoid options that are maybe a little more specific than others? That's what Paladin is, a rather specific archetype, but it's one a lot of people like, so it's uncommon to hear requests for its removal. (You still do, of course, because reductionism <em>uber alles</em> is a thing, but it's not as common a target in 5e as Sorcerer and/or Warlock.)</p><p></p><p>Third, why does the publication of new classes your table doesn't need negatively affect you? You seem to be making rather a strong statement here, albeit implicitly, that creating rules elements that some peple (perhaps a majority) don't need actually <em>worsens</em> your/their gaming experience. That's a bit surprising, and I'd like to know how and why that happens.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8522477, member: 6790260"] So, the only things that should be published are the ones [I]your[/I] table needs? Because that's the implication of what you're saying here--that WotC should only publish things for [I]your[/I] needs, not anyone else's. I know that the more probable [I]intent[/I] of your statement is "they should only make things that [I]most people[/I] need," but...well, there's some big problems with that, even if I grant you that charitable reading. The first is the word "need." Properly speaking, nobody ever [I]needs[/I] anything. Necessity is a bad standard for [I]leisure-time activities[/I]. We don't, for example, determine meal plans purely based on what humans [I]need[/I] for nutrition, otherwise we'd all be eating standardized nutrient supplements. Instead, we make meal plans based on what we [I]want[/I], which includes things like varying flavors or different sources of protein, avoiding disliked flavors, that sort of thing. Second, if the only official provisions are the ones generically needed....then they're going to need to [I]be[/I] generic, and that's exactly what people are complaining about now. And what I called out earlier with the Morton's Fork: if a class is specific, it shouldn't be offered because then a more general class can be offered instead; if a class is general, well then it should be folded into whatever the most-similar and more-traditional class is, since there's no need for two generalists that cover the same space. Why should WotC [I]always[/I] avoid options that are maybe a little more specific than others? That's what Paladin is, a rather specific archetype, but it's one a lot of people like, so it's uncommon to hear requests for its removal. (You still do, of course, because reductionism [I]uber alles[/I] is a thing, but it's not as common a target in 5e as Sorcerer and/or Warlock.) Third, why does the publication of new classes your table doesn't need negatively affect you? You seem to be making rather a strong statement here, albeit implicitly, that creating rules elements that some peple (perhaps a majority) don't need actually [I]worsens[/I] your/their gaming experience. That's a bit surprising, and I'd like to know how and why that happens. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Classes for 5e. Is anything missing?
Top