D&D 5E Sage Advice is back!

[Maxperson]

Welcome to the ranger, warlock, sorcerer, and cleric. Half of those classes was defined by their exclusive spells due to either the weakness of their class feature mechanics and/or the sheer power of their exclusive spells. The edges of the clases have started to meld into each other.

I disagree on all 4. Spells are not what I think of for any of those classes when people ask me about them.

Not once has someone asked me about a ranger and been told, yeah they have ranger spells. I describe the tracker and woodsman(all terrain really). I tell them about their ability to fight certain foes that they choose. And so on. Same with the rest. I describe the actual class, not the spells that don't have anything to do with defining the class itself.

It really took Tasha's optional class feature variants/expansions and powered up subclasses to keep many of the classes from feeling the same. However it doesn't seem like preservation of class identity was focused on actively and more of an aftereffect of the search for interesting subclasses (subclasses the dip into the play styles of other classes themselves).

From day one, none of the 5e classes felt the same to me.

 

[Maxperson]

Warlock is my favorite class, and its spell list is the least notable feature for me. I much prefer the flavor, the subclasses, and the invocations, all of which make me feel more like a warlock then any spell list.

Same with ranger and the rangery things it can do. It might be weaker than many other classes, but the ranger definition is there. And same with the cleric as divine agents of their gods, and with sorcerer's and their innate ability to use and manipulate magic.

 

[Shardstone]

Something said in this interview really resonates with me.

The designers want people to look at the tools and use them how they see fit. They have actually been saying this for many years. However, because of the balanced nature of the game, the community is very hostile towards attempts to modify the game. I think there is a fundamental disconnect between WotC's message and the audience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Something said in this interview really resonates with me.

The designers want people to look at the tools and use them how they see fit. They have actually been saying this for many years. However, because of the balanced nature of the game, the community is very hostile towards attempts to modify the game. I think there is a fundamental disconnect between WotC's message and the audience.

If they want players to think of the game as a toolkit, they should present it as one, and tell players not to expect everything in the books to be in every campaign.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If they want players to think of the game as a toolkit, they should present it as one, and tell players not to expect everything in the books to be in every campaign.

Or... they have enough faith in the playerbase that these players can come up with these ideas on their own and not have to be spoonfed by the designers on "how to play the game".

If (general) you are using everything in the books even when you don't want to because WotC hasn't specifically said in any of the books that you didn't have to... that's all on you. It's not WotC's duty to print all these special things down just so (general) you can point your finger at a book and say "See! I can do this! The rules let me!"

 

[Weiley31]

Nobody takes MtG settings seriously.

I will if I get a Throne of Eldrain or New Capenna cross-over book.

 

[Yaarel]

I agree the choice of csntrips can be very flavorful for a character concept that the player has in mind to explore.

Low level Magic certainly helps define a theme: Wizards get Prestidigitstion, Clerics get Thaumaturgy, and Druids get Druidcraft as tropes to play to their fiction. The Strixhaven Feats play with this space by giving Wizards Druidcraft, or Clerics Prestidigitation, etc. Doesn't break a thing, but it alters themes, which is the point of having a divergent Setting.

Edit to noye: I actually don't know what you are responding to, so this might be random, sorry.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or... they have enough faith in the playerbase that these players can come up with these ideas on their own and not have to be spoonfed by the designers on "how to play the game".

If (general) you are using everything in the books even when you don't want to because WotC hasn't specifically said in any of the books that you didn't have to... that's all on you. It's not WotC's duty to print all these special things down just so (general) you can point your finger at a book and say "See! I can do this! The rules let me!"

Your last sentence is exactly what every player who insists on playing a tabaxi regardless of the campaign says.

 

[Mordhau]

Something said in this interview really resonates with me.

The designers want people to look at the tools and use them how they see fit. They have actually been saying this for many years. However, because of the balanced nature of the game, the community is very hostile towards attempts to modify the game. I think there is a fundamental disconnect between WotC's message and the audience.

This is ancient. It goes back all the way to 3e at least. Back then they saw Prestige Classes as a tool for the GM to customise the game to their setting. That's not how it worked out in practice.

Of course they were partially responsible for that too. But as late as Tome of Battle they were still publishing prestige classes with comments along the lines of this prestige class is an example of how you might do X.

And of course, my understanding is that Sage Advice was only ever originally started on sufference back in the early days. They didn't really see the need at first for any kind of official rulings - they expected tables to sort these things out themselves.

In the case of 5e encouraging this customisation is also belied by the increasing digitisation of the game. If I want to change the skill list on Roll20, for example, I run into all sorts of problems with the interface.

 

[Mordhau]

Something said in this interview really resonates with me.

The designers want people to look at the tools and use them how they see fit. They have actually been saying this for many years. However, because of the balanced nature of the game, the community is very hostile towards attempts to modify the game. I think there is a fundamental disconnect between WotC's message and the audience.

People always think the game is more balanced than it is and are afraid to mess with things. I remember when the Black Company D20 campaign gave Fighters 2 extra skill points per level and everyone was all "this is terribly unbalanced, the game was carefully calibrated and the Fighter was was only given 2 skill points a level for a good reason".