log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Really concerned about class design

Aebir-Toril

Creator of the Elfgrinder Mech
Yes, this is what I mean by breadth based design, not depth based.

Basically, you can have many characters, but you can't have complex characters.

5E isn't crunchy enough for many of us.

Most subclasses just rehash the same bonuses anyway, just handing them out in different combinations: such as getting advantage to one skill or special case. There has been little to no real invention when it comes to new mechanisms.

Basically, the success of 5E has meant WotC is treading water. They aren't going to add substantial new content for fear of disrupting their cash cow.
Even though I absolutely love 5E, I have to agree. But, this isn't just the case with subclasses and the character creation system. In 5 years of 5E, we've seen one book with rules for "alternate campaigns", apart from the DMG, and that book is GoS. As for subsystems, XGtE is fine, I suppose. But, the amount of crunch that has been added to the game is actually pitiful when yuou step back from the game.

I own a lot of 5E books, and I've read more. Really, if you consider what the "splatbooks" actually contain, WotC's hesitation has been somewhat ridiculous.

VGtM is a wonderful splatbook, that gave us no new systems. Even the (awesome) races included are just more of the same, leading to greater depth of options, but less breadth of options. Also, Yuan-Ti Purebloods were not adequately playtested and you can't convince me otherwise.

TFtYP was an adventure book, 'nuff said.

XGtE contained new subclasses, and a few new new options for DMs, although most of these were very minor. DMs were given new rules for tool proficiencies, a new encounter calculation method, and a few very bare bones subsystems, along with what amounts to a few paragraphs of errata. I still love XGtE, but there was little in the way of new systems of consequence here.

MToF contained new races and new monsters, with no expanded options for players (i.e., they have new races, but not a greater breadth of class options).

GoS was an adventure book that gave DMs a good and solid ruleset for sea exploration.

What does this show?

It shows that WotC is consistently releasing great products, including ones that are good (XGtE) and amazing (GoS) for DMs. The problem is that, in all of those years, players have only received subclasses and races, oh, and backgrounds I guess (but, backgrounds? Really?). The recent Alchemist class is the first new class to come out in 5 years. That's a long time!

Furthermore, if each splatbook contains nothing more than new race/new subclass/new monster, this formula will quickly become routine. What's the point of buying what amounts to a Monster Manual 3 is you know that all you're getting is more of the same.

Perhaps I'm exaggerating the issue, but my concern is that WotC will not cater at all to a want for newer systems. Now, is this a purely selfish desire? Well, I hope not, as I've tried to justify it, and I think it's fairly rational.

What I am sure of is that WotC's content release pace is far too slow.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


And explicitly a trap.
Oh, come now, if it's explicit, it's not a trap, it's just a hazard. Cover a pit and camouflage it, it's a trap. Surround it with yellow caution tape and signs saying "WARNING: Open Pit" and it's not.

That said the extent to which MCing may be hazardous to your build is not explicit.

What I am sure of is that WotC's content release pace is far too slow.
This may sound weird, but I think the release pace of books and products is fine, but I agree with you about content. A book a year with meaningful 'crunch' would be plenty, along side a campaign/setting book or adventure path a year.
 


I actually think WotC should slow down again to just two books a year instead of the 3-4 they've been doing. Not for any factual reason in particular, I just think the glacial pace does well for game health, and I want this to be the definitive edition of D&D.
 

I've never understood the "multi classing is a trap".
Do you want why it's a trap explained to you in detail?
Or were you leading into a detailed explanation of why it balances in all instances?

I don't feel like providing the former, though I'm sure there'd be someone, but the latter might be an interesting read.
 

Mistwell

Legend
Really? That's funny. All I remember is you bombing into the thread with a ton of baggage and eye-rolling attempts at condescension.

You literally attacked me personally in your first post without even understanding my argument and without me attacking anyone beforehand.

You have issues with projection.
Not for you, but for everyone else to see, this was my first post to you in this thread which you just described as me not understanding and personally attacking you:

Can you describe actual experience you've had with this being a problem in games you've played, without using any theory about it being a problem?
And just in case you were confused about what my first post was, here was my second post, which similarly cannot be rationally described as personally attacking you:

I have not had any experience with the current class and sub-class selection to be a problem. And I think if you want to house rule in some more classes or grab some from third party sources, I am sure it will work out fine for your game as well. I just don't see it as a problem for the existing game. I have not seen a meaningful number of people with this issue. But I am willing to listen if people are experiencing this problem.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Do you want why it's a trap explained to you in detail?
Or were you leading into a detailed explanation of why it balances in all instances?

I don't feel like providing the former, though I'm sure there'd be someone, but the latter might be an interesting read.
Some people have stated that multi classing is a trap. I don't understand why they think that. Several people I know have done it, they seem to enjoy their PCs and how they work. I know I enjoyed mine. Isn't that what really matters?

I also don't think it's possible and even a worthy goal to have every option evenly balanced at every level for a game in the style of 5E.
 

Giltonio_Santos

Adventurer
This may sound weird, but I think the release pace of books and products is fine, but I agree with you about content. A book a year with meaningful 'crunch' would be plenty, along side a campaign/setting book or adventure path a year.
Not weird at all. I’m fine with their current pace of new releases, but I think there’s a lot of good design space being left out of the table.

The complexity curve of the game could definitely have been raised by now, for those who want it. That becomes even more reasonable to ask for when you consider that there’s no shortage of good starter products at retail.
 

Some people have stated that multi classing is a trap. I don't understand why they think that.
So you do want a more complete explanation, and are not merely reflexively pushing back with a flat denial. Thanks for clarifying that.

Several people I know have done it, they seem to enjoy their PCs and how they work. I know I enjoyed mine. Isn't that what really matters?
Your anecdote has been noted. As has your belief that only your experiences matter (yeah, not really). ;)

I also don't think it's possible and even a worthy goal to have every option evenly balanced at every level for a game in the style of 5E.
I understand wanting the game to be innately imbalanced, yes. It provides opportunities to exercise system mastery and de-facto punishes disfavored character concepts and play styles, passively, without the DM needing to enforce those preferences.

If the idea of someone else trying to balance the game a bit better for some purpose or another is disturbing, consider that they can probably accomplish their purpose by unbalancing it differently, so the system masters at their table may zig instead of zag, and the style they want to encourage is favored by the alternate imbalances they choose to introduce.
 
Last edited:

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
So you do want a more complete explanation, and are not merely reflexively pushing back with a flat denial. Thanks for clarifying that.

Your anecdote has been noted. As has your belief that only your experiences matter (yeah, not really). ;)
I can imagine that some people will not be happy with a PC they've created. It's why I allow people to do rebuilds if it makes sense. It's something I'll discuss with my player, and whether it would just make more sense to bring in a new PC.

In my limited experience, while some people have taken advantage of that, it's never been because of multi classing.

But ... some people claim it's always a trap. Can it be a bad choice? I guess. Is it always a bad choice? I've never seen any evidence that it is, I don't know why people would think so.

I understand wanting the game to be innately imbalanced, yes. It provides opportunities to exercise system mastery and de-facto punishes disfavored character concepts and play styles, passively, without the DM needing to enforce those preferences.
Not sure what you're saying here. I think 4E was in many ways a better game from a balance perspective, I also don't think it made it more enjoyable to play. YMMV.


EDIT: I don't need an in-depth analysis. Cliff notes version would work. :)
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Oh, the concept of the Paladin - the pious knight in shining armor along the lines of Parsifal/Galahad and Lancelot, the highest echelon of the vassals of Charlemagne, the metaphorical name adopted by the main character in Have Gun, Will Travel, the Crusaders & Templars of history, etc - was popular enough before D&D.
And Lancelot at least is member of another story archetype the oath bound hero which is rather what D&D Paladin WAS - rather than just the pious knight or its namesake the penultimate military leaders of a church sponsored (but not really run) kingship or the less high ranking rebellious knights got slandered as being witches but were never the less greedy bastard invaders so I give no sympathy.

5e seemed to notice the distinction for that I give it a thumbs up.
 



Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Dodge the jaws of a trap it clamps shut harmlessly it was still a trap.
If you don't like the way they implementing multi classing in 5E, fine. I disagree but to each his own.

Or are you saying that a bad option that has no negative impact at all is still a bad option? Because I'm confused. How is something bad if nothing bad happens?
 

I think 4E was in many ways a better game from a balance perspective, I also don't think it made it more enjoyable to play.
If you were enjoying taking advantage of an imbalanced system (or, if you were at a table where absolutely no one was doing so, or conversely, absolutely everyone was doing so to exactly the same degree), and it's fixed up a little, your enjoyment may be somewhat reduced (or not noticeably impacted).

While even fairly minor game imbalances can manifest in play in ways that negatively impact the player experience (perhaps while also making one or some players very pleased, in a negative-sum sorta way). If you have a decent DM and/or relatively comparable levels of restraint or system mastery at the table, even a radically imbalanced game may only serve to narrow the scope of play - essentially re-imposing balance on a sub-set of the game's nominal range of play. "Style" is often used to sum-up the sub-set of a game's potential range that a group sticks to, for whatever reason.

Not sure what you're saying here.
One game-critic's 'trap' is another DM's 'incentive.'
 

Aebir-Toril

Creator of the Elfgrinder Mech
If you don't like the way they implementing multi classing in 5E, fine. I disagree but to each his own.

Or are you saying that a bad option that has no negative impact at all is still a bad option? Because I'm confused. How is something bad if nothing bad happens?
Because bad design can produce good results. For example, if I'm playing with a cracked and warped d20 that usually only rolls 1s, and it rolls a 20 when my friend uses it, that doesn't mean that its design is good, it means that there was an outcome which wasn't bad.
 

Or are you saying that a bad option that has no negative impact at all is still a bad option? Because I'm confused. How is something bad if nothing bad happens?
Well, has no negative impact in one instance.

For example, say a chemical plant next to your house is releasing colorless, ordorless, highly carcinogenic fumes for decades. Several of your neighbors get cancer as a result, and sue. The company brings you in as a witness, you testify that you do not have cancer.
Case Dismissed?
 

Aebir-Toril

Creator of the Elfgrinder Mech
Well, has no negative impact in one instance.

For example, say a chemical plant next to your house is releasing colorless, ordorless, highly carcinogenic fumes for decades. Several of your neighbors get cancer as a result, and sue. The company brings you in as a witness, you testify that you do not have cancer.
Case Dismissed?
Same thing that I said... Hey! :)
 


Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top