D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Salthorae]

Even beyond that, the existence of 3pp material doesn’t help those folks who (unlike me for the most part) aren’t happy with 5e’s design goals or output rate

If they aren’t happy with 5e design goals and output rate why are they playing 5e? That is a serious question. Why play an rpg that doesn’t do what you want in the big areas?

It’s funny that the shaman keeps getting mentioned, though. It’s one of the only classes I still don’t think can satisfyingly be represented in 5e.

What is a shaman to you? What do you mean by “shaman” that you don’t find can be represented?

 

[Einlanzer0]

This falls into:
View attachment 116109
I'm not a moderator in any way, but please be respectful.

The issue is half the people in this thread are mocking the idea of new classes as "splat", bringing in baggage from previous discussions, as if that isn't what myriad subclasses with random themes are.

 

[generic]

The issue is half the people in this thread are mocking the idea of new classes as "splat", bringing in baggage from previous discussions, as if that isn't what myriad subclasses with random themes are.

I actually agree with you, in many ways, but you should respect that sometimes, people can be 'wrong' on the Internet.

 

[Salthorae]

The issue is half the people in this thread are mocking the idea of new classes as "splat",

I don’t see anyone mocking in here other than you mocking the WotC design team effort levels

New classes just aren’t in the cards for this edition.

Right or wrong. Agree with it or not. If you want new classes to fill conceptual space you feel is unfulfilled, you’ll need to turn to 3PP/DMs Guild or do it yourself.

 

[Oofta]

Tell me exactly what you disagree with, because I'd actually like to address it.

No game is perfect, but I like the direction they took with a more rules-light edition. Exactly what I disagree with? Your basic premise,

For all practical purposes the different subclasses are different classes that inherit the same leveling/power gain. The assumption is that if you follow the guidelines PCs get to third level after a session or two.

There's no need to have a separate class with a few different proficiencies or minor abilities, that's what backgrounds, feats and multi-classing are for.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I don’t see anyone mocking in here other than you mocking the WotC design team effort levels

New classes just aren’t in the cards for this edition.

Right or wrong. Agree with it or not. If you want new classes to fill conceptual space you feel is unfulfilled, you’ll need to turn to 3PP/DMs Guild or do it yourself.

Well they clearly are because we just got the artificer. And that's most likely because they realized that their initial draft of pigeonholing it as a wizard subclass was a disservice to the concept.

 

[Salthorae]

Well they clearly are because we just got the artificer. And that's most likely because they realized that their initial draft of pigeonholing it as a wizard subclass was a disservice to the concept.

I’m not saying it’s impossible, but 1 new class in 5 years doesn’t indicate a change in design philosophy. It just indicates that Artificer as a wizard feedback didn’t meet the 70% publishable approval threshold while Artificer as a class did.

They wanted to do Eberron. To do Eberron you have to have an Artificer if some sort.

Now, IF Dark Sun is something that they’re going to do. Yes. They will probably publish a Psion class.

Can’t do Dark Sun without a Psion (of some sort) anymore than you couldEberron without some sort of Artificer.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Insulting the devs because they didn't write the game exactly like you want it doesn't mean much.

It may be more "intuitive" for you, but previous editions took that path. I'm glad they didn't repeat the mistake. I'd rather have a flexible chassis than have to join the book of the month club so I can find the one variation that sort of matches my vision.

I'm not insulting the game designers. I'm scrutinizing the methodology they seem to have applied for this edition.

 

[Oofta]

Can't even begin to agree with that assertion. 5e uses full-on straightjacket classes, just like 1e, really. It curbs that slightly with 2e-Kit-like backgrounds, and optional 3e-lite feats & MCing. Sub-classes (archetypes, BTW, is the label for Fighter/Rouge sub-classes, every other class has a different term for it, just say'n) represent a level of flexibility somewhere between old-school hardwired sub-classes that were just alternate classes and 2e specialty priests/specialist wizards, OT1H, and 3e/4e 'builds' OTO - as befits a compromise edition, I suppose.

But, it remains very much - as it's meant to - traditional D&D, which means it's just a long lists of long lists (though less long than any ed since 1e), with playing the character you want ultimately dependent on there being something 'close enough' on the list.

3e & 4e were both had much more flexible rulesets than 5e. Much more. Not even a fair comparison, really.

What flexibility 5e is an aftermarket accessory added by any DM willing to wield a machete. It's like 0e/1e, that way, really, which makes it a fine tribute to the early game, a perfect vehicle for the current come-back, and a laudable marketing/commercial success.

Sub-classes are more like little mini-classes unto themselves than builds in 3e & 4e or Kits in 2e, and less like that then sub-classes in 1e (which were, totally, full classes onto themselves, just inheriting a few things from the nominal over-class, like what magic items they could use, for instance).

So, really, 5e 'needs fewer classes' in the sense that it can proliferate sub-classes to the same basic effect as proliferating classes (especially PrCs).

It would not have been that hard to reduce the number of classes to 4, rather like the class groups in 2e, and have Paladins, Rangers, & Barbarians (& Warlord) sub-classes of Fighter, Sorcerer & Warlock (& Artificer) sub-classes of wizard, Bard & Monk sub-classes of Rogue, and the Druid (& Avenger, & Archivist) as sub-classes of Cleric.

We'd still need a freak'n Psionicist, though.

I do agree with the note on sub classes, they are effectively a way to consolidate some basic rules structure while still feeling quite different. Kind of like how car companies build multiple vehicles off the same platform* because there's no need to (literally) reinvent the wheel.

Some of the other stuff seems to get into the difference between rules light and rules heavy (or clunky depending on your POV) games. In part I'm just parroting some of the design philosophy discussions put out by the devs when 5E was released. All I can say is that I'm happy I can make a stealthy monk who's part rogue using something as easy to implement as backgrounds.

For that matter, my vision of Conan (which may not match yours) could use a similar background to be a thief/warrior. Hmm ... I may have a different character concept option for my next campaign. Ninja or thief inspired by Conan/Fafhrd? Decisions, decisions.

*Yes, I seem to be stuck on car manufacturers today.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not insulting the game designers. I'm scrutinizing the methodology they seem to have applied for this edition.

By calling them lazy and sloppy. Gotcha. "I'm not calling you an idiot but all your ideas are stupid."