D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[CleverNickName]

This is one of the problems of 3rd edition Prestige Classes... all over again. Subclasses are there to make D&D a CRPG more than a pen and paper game of imagination. They appeal to a certain sense of gamism at the expense of something else. It's not surprising. If Hasbro is going to make profit, it needs to be able to sell books that players will buy, not just GMs. And players love these crunchy options, even if (IMO) they harm the overall product quality.

If a sense of "gamism" is the problem, the battle mat is by far the worst offender, in my opinion. We've got rules that reduce everything to 5' squares and reward board positions, we've got licensed minis and terrain, custom 3D-printed minis and terrain, we've got virtual tabletops and online subscriptions...

Subclasses might be "gamist," but they've got nothing on the battle mat.

 

[Big J Money]

Edit - I did a quick search of your posts and you recently said, " I'm running a 5E game without the PHBook and not very happy with the vague Bard writeup in the basic rules". So, I was right. You don't even have the

I own the PHBook, but I'm not using it in the LMoP campaign I'm running for some new players. I'm restricting this game to only the materials that come in the boxed starter set until they complete it. You'd be correct in guessing that I don't own other supplements, however. I certainly have not seen the full range of subclasses. My knowledge of subclasses comes from:

• PHBook
• Reading the names of new classes / subclasses added to books in the DnDBeyond product contents lists
• These and other forums around the web for the last years since following the "D&D Next" beta, and reviews, etc
• More than a dozen of my friends / co-workers who have been playing 5E since D&D Next

Even with all this exposure, I'll agree that I could be overstating the problem in my reaction to the OP. But the conclusions you draw from the info discovered in your sleuthing are nevertheless misleading. And I don't see why you find value in attempting to undermine someone's character / position on a message board about playing games.

If a sense of "gamism" is the problem

I want to make it clear that I'm not saying gamism is a problem, in general. I like your choice example however, since I run Theater of the Mind it sounds like you've got my number, to some extent .

 

[Mistwell]

I own the PHBook, but I'm not using it in the LMoP campaign I'm running for some new players. I'm restricting this game to only the materials that come in the boxed starter set until they complete it. You'd be correct in guessing that I don't own other supplements, however. I certainly have not seen the full range of subclasses. My knowledge of subclasses comes from:

• PHBook
• Reading the names of new classes / subclasses added to books in the DnDBeyond product contents lists
• These and other forums around the web for the last years since following the "D&D Next" beta, and reviews, etc
• More than a dozen of my friends / co-workers who have been playing 5E since D&D Next

Even with all this exposure, I'll agree that I could be overstating the problem in my reaction to the OP. But the conclusions you draw from the info discovered in your sleuthing are nevertheless misleading. And I don't see why you find value in attempting to undermine someone's character / position on a message board about playing games.

It's undermining your character to mention it doesn't sound like you have read the stuff you....have not read and which you admit you probably overstated the problem?

OK then.

 

[Big J Money]

My point is there are other sources of info on subclasses that do not require someone to personally own every 5E book before they are allowed to have an opinion on the subject.

I'm not admitting anything other than that I have less info than some people, and could be wrong. Since anyone could be wrong about anything, it's not much of an admission. I'm finished having this negative conversation with you and will not continue to defend myself. If your intent was to misdirect from the conversation, well played.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My point is there are other sources of info on subclasses that do not require someone to personally own every 5E book before they are allowed to have an opinion on the subject.

I'm not admitting anything other than that I have less info than some people, and could be wrong. Since anyone could be wrong about anything, it's not much of an admission. I'm finished having this negative conversation with you and will not continue to defend myself. If your intent was to misdirect from the conversation, well played.

While, yes, it is tautologically correct to say anyone could be wrong, there's still a qualitative difference between, say, someone opining on a movie they've seen and someone opining on the same movie after only watching the teaser trailer. The relative likelihoods of being wrong vary.

Your opinion is also pretty unusual, even on a board with some strong detractors of 5e, so it's even more jarring that you've formed such an opinion with so little exposure. Hence, the pushback you're getting. I'd strongly encourage you to re-evaluate your presumption, but it's a game where your opinion doesn't impact anyone else's play so you're ultimately free to believe whatever floats your boat. I think that you'll have a very hard time enjoying 5e with your current opinions, though, so if you keep them, I'd encourage you to look for a game that better meets your needs.

 

[Umbran]

Subclasses are there to make D&D a CRPG more than a pen and paper game of imagination.

I am unclear how you get to that conclusion.

They appeal to a certain sense of gamism at the expense of something else.

What is that "something else", exactly? I'm not sure I understand what you think is lost.

If Hasbro is going to make profit, it needs to be able to sell books that players will buy, not just GMs. And players love these crunchy options, even if (IMO) they harm the overall product quality.

Yes, Hasbro has to sell books.

But have you noticed how slow the release schedule is, compared to pretty much every game from 2e onwards? By comparison to prior editions, 5e is far from a flood of player-directed crunch.

 

[Parmandur]

In 5 years of 5E, we've seen one book with rules for "alternate campaigns", apart from the DMG, and that book is Go

Incorrect, that's precisely what Ravnica and Rising from the Last War is built to do, and Setting books as a new paradigm.

New systems are good to be released slowly. No need to be hasty.

 

[generic]

Incorrect, that's precisely what Ravnica and Rising from the Last War is built to do, and Setting books as a new paradigm.

New systems are good to be released slowly. No need to be hasty.

I actually don't own either of those books, nor am I aware of their contents, so perhaps I should have been more careful with my judgement, and the reserving of it, respectively.

Good point.

 

[Parmandur]

5 years is 5 years.

It's not like 5e is going to release everything any given faster-release edition did, in the same order. It's not like any of us are getting any younger, either.

Let's look at playable psionics, since we don't have that in 5e, after 5 years of waiting 26th book, by my count, even including little things like dungeon delve & races supplements. How did you double it? Include miniatures or something?

Also:

0e: 6th product released, Eldritch Wizardry Supplement III
1e: 2nd product released, Player's Handbook

5 years is 5 years. And, if Eberron, had also had the Psion, at product 13, that would have put 5e in the middle of the pack, as far as books in print before seeing psionics goes, between 3e and 2e, which, really, would be appropriate.

But 5 years is more than twice as long as any other edition took. 0e and 1e had even slower paces of publication, and they both had playable psionics, in print, a year or two in. Heck, if you don't count playable, 1e had psionics at launch.

Five Years. It's five years, no matter what how you handwave or misdirect or move the goalposts...

...and counting.

5 years is early days yet, haroom-harum, no need to be hasty.

 

[Parmandur]

I actually don't own either of those books, nor am I aware of their contents, so perhaps I should have been more careful with my judgement, and the reserving of it, respectively.

Good point.

The idea with 5E Setting books is to provide a genre "booster pack" to the game, to facilitate alternative campaigns with crunch and, more vitally, idea-creation engines similar to what's in the DMG. GoS is, actually, a good example of that, but Ravnica and Eberron go much bigger with both. I would recommend giving both books a check (Acquisitions Incorporated does similar work, though it is the only 5E hardcover I have avoided purchasing as it didn't speak to me).