D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Parmandur]

What problems, specifically?

I'm particularly interested in any that aren't the results of general rules bloat, and aren't the result of problems with other systems or classes which just interact poorly with a class.

Personally in 3.XE I fully expected to see problems with the number of classes, especially post Tome of Nine Fighter Replacements or whatever it was called, but they never actually materialised. So I'm curious.

PRCs caused huge problems, but they aren't classes, and it was largely a double handful of specific, broken PRCs, mostly from early 3E days which were at the heart of every PRC issue. Bloat was only a problem with them in that 80% were simply bad choices.

Analysis paralysis, and neccesitating a serious deep dive into "builds" to make the desired character for most people. I'm lumping in PRC with Class's, since a Class is a Class. That 80% were worthless choices is something I agree with, and is the point.

In 5E, in contrast, there is basically no "wrong" choice, just choices that are more or less interesting to an individual. Having a small, curated number of base Classes with 12 (now 13) strict patterns for Subclass design helps channel design into useable choices.

 

[Oofta]

This Toyota analogy really makes my point. WotC are nothing like Toyota. The D&D market is nothing like the car market. Comparing them is silly and shows you're taking this faith-based approach rather than looking at the market.

WotC as a whole are certainly not lazy. We concur there. However specific products or implementations absolutely can be, and that's not to do with the market, that's to do with half-hearted or thoughtless design. Or people designing above their pay grade, as it were.

I'm not going to argue any more about this. I have no idea what you're even trying to say other than "I'm right you're wrong". There are several publishers out there, there are a wide variety of game implementations and ideas. BTW it's called an "analogy", not a direct comparison.

I dislike several things in D&D 5E but on balance I think the majority is superior to what came before. I just get tired of people using an insulting term because something was developed that was not their personal taste.

Have a good one.

 

[Sadras]

Yeah the lazy comment was unnecessary and to argue that it's synonym in casual English for something else is just dumb. See what I did there?

Probably get reported but hey, I will just explain to Umbran or Morrus that it means something else.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Analysis paralysis, and neccesitating a serious deep dive into "builds" to make the desired character for most people. I'm lumping in PRC with Class's, since a Class is a Class. That 80% were worthless choices is something I agree with, and is the point.

In 5E, in contrast, there is basically no "wrong" choice, just choices that are more or less interesting to an individual. Having a small, curated number of base Classes with 12 (now 13) strict patterns for Subclass design helps channel design into useable choices.

Interesting.

I agree re analysis paralysis but it was not caused by class bloat, but PRC bloat. Take out the PRCs and the problem didn't exist. Of the actual 1-20 classes, no more were worthless than 5E (er well teirs were a thing but the old classes were the lowest teir ones so that's another issue), whereas PRCs tended to be rubbish or needlessly hyperspecific, or, rarely awesome no-brainers. Treating PRCs and 1-20 classes in this context seems like it doesn't help understand the problem.

5E gaining 2-3 more classes will not cause any real problems. Graining 24-36 more subclasses for existing classes will create more problems I think.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree re analysis paralysis but it was not caused by class bloat, but PRC bloat. Take out the PRCs and the problem didn't exist. Of the actual 1-20 classes, no more were worthless than 5E (er well teirs were a thing but the old classes were the lowest teir ones so that's another issue), whereas PRCs tended to be rubbish or needlessly hyperspecific, or, rarely awesome no-brainers. Treating PRCs and 1-20 classes in this context seems like it doesn't help understand the problem.

Agree with this. Ignoring PrCs, base classes were usually not worth multiclassing in 3.5. Feat, spell, and magic item analysis was still definitely a thing, of course. PF archetypes were even worse for this, although they were certainly a fun puzzle to solve for the right kind of player (OK, I mean me.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why is it the 3rd party publishers with a fraction of the resources of WotC can put the effort into putting together a good Psion Class, but WotC just gives up and shoves into the Wizard?

Because that's the whole point of WotC allowing the DMs Guild and 3rd party companies to do this in the first place... so those people can make these extra-specialized things that like 17 people will ever end up actually using, so that WotC doesn't have to.

The real question I think to ask is "Why do so many players believe that quality D&D material only counts if WotC produces it? That if you get it from a different source it's not real."?

And before anyone shouts "Adventurer's League!"... just remember that if the restrictions of AL are really such a hardship for you, you can always just create a new group from the people who you've been playing with at the game store and make the game not a part of AL. Then you can use whatever DMs Guild material you want.

 

[Oofta]

Because that's the whole point of WotC allowing the DMs Guild and 3rd party companies to do this in the first place... so those people can make these extra-specialized things that like 17 people will ever end up actually using, so that WotC doesn't have to.

The real question I think to ask is "Why do so many players believe that quality D&D material only counts if WotC produces it? That if you get it from a different source it's not real."?

And before anyone shouts "Adventurer's League!"... just remember that if the restrictions of AL are really such a hardship for you, you can always just create a new group from the people who you've been playing with at the game store and make the game not a part of AL. Then you can use whatever DMs Guild material you want.

Almost like how car companies like Toyota allow for and even encourage in some cases after-market add-ons.

Oh wait, I'm not allowed to use automotive manufacturers analogy of a mass market product vs a niche product. Sorry.

 

[TwoSix]

The real question I think to ask is "Why do so many players believe that quality D&D material only counts if WotC produces it? That if you get it from a different source it's not real."?

And before anyone shouts "Adventurer's League!"... just remember that if the restrictions of AL are really such a hardship for you, you can always just create a new group from the people who you've been playing with at the game store and make the game not a part of AL. Then you can use whatever DMs Guild material you want.

I agree with you, with one caveat. I think the number of people playing either AL or online games is probably a decent size fraction, and it's a shame the online tools (especially D&D Beyond) don't support 3rd party and homebrew classes. I know the only game I really can't use homebrew is my online campaign, which sucks.

People who are playing at the table, and only like to use official material, that I don't understand.

 

[Salthorae]

it's a shame the online tools (especially D&D Beyond) don't support 3rd party and homebrew classes.

D&D Beyond has an entire homebrew section. You can create homebrew content and even share it with the entire world, and use it in your campaigns.

Not sure about the other online tools, but D&D Beyond definitely DOES support homebrew content, you just have to do it or find it.

 

[Parmandur]

Interesting.

I agree re analysis paralysis but it was not caused by class bloat, but PRC bloat. Take out the PRCs and the problem didn't exist. Of the actual 1-20 classes, no more were worthless than 5E (er well teirs were a thing but the old classes were the lowest teir ones so that's another issue), whereas PRCs tended to be rubbish or needlessly hyperspecific, or, rarely awesome no-brainers. Treating PRCs and 1-20 classes in this context seems like it doesn't help understand the problem.

5E gaining 2-3 more classes will not cause any real problems. Graining 24-36 more subclasses for existing classes will create more problems I think.

The thing about multiplying Subclasses, they are easy to sort through, there being one a handful of base archetypes they radiate from.

I'm not opposed to be Classes, per se, I just think WotC is in the right track with the long development process and defaulting to Subclasses whenever possible.