Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Strixhaven: Curriculum of Chaos No Subclasses Confirmed by James Crawford
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8346204" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>That, unfortunately, seems to be one of the big problems of their current approach to collecting data. It's a "one strike, you're out" rule. If something strikes out, unless they're REALLY REALLY committed to that specific thing, it's gone, poof. See, for instance, the Sorcerer and Warlock from the Next playtest. Those were incredibly cool ideas with way more flavor and layers to them, and as soon as they got <em>one</em> overall bad report, flushed down the drain faster than you can say "bob's your uncle," never to be seen again--to the point that many 5e fans now don't even know they existed.</p><p></p><p>We're almost certainly never going to see PrCs, multi-class subclasses, or a variety of other "failed" UA material, because the design culture of 5e is "if it doesn't poll well, it's EVIL TOXIN FROM THE ABYSS." Unless it's Traditional™, then they'll just keep iterating on it. It took <em>several</em> rounds for them to abandon the idea of an actual psionic class, for example, because an actual psionic class was Traditional™ (meaning, it existed in 2e and/or 3e.)</p><p></p><p>I may be cynical and salty on this subject, but I don't feel I'm reaching when I say the current design team treats a single bad response, no matter what the underlying reason may be, as reason to yeet ideas with extreme prejudice. Even when the bad response is "this is too good, <em>buff the stuff we already have</em> so that it won't be broken," they will instead nerf the new stuff. (See: Storm Sorcerers <em>originally</em> got bonus spells, and instead of saying, "hey, yeah, we hear you that Dragon/Chaos Sorcerers are a bit lacking in the spell department, we'll fix that," they went with "oh, okay, we get it, Storm Sorcerer is too powerful--we'll nerf it to match the other Sorcerers!") </p><p></p><p>It's a pattern at this point. Go for the low-hanging fruit. Take no risks. Do nothing mechanical that might be unappreciated. I'm <em>honestly</em> still surprised that they actually made an Artificer class.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8346204, member: 6790260"] That, unfortunately, seems to be one of the big problems of their current approach to collecting data. It's a "one strike, you're out" rule. If something strikes out, unless they're REALLY REALLY committed to that specific thing, it's gone, poof. See, for instance, the Sorcerer and Warlock from the Next playtest. Those were incredibly cool ideas with way more flavor and layers to them, and as soon as they got [I]one[/I] overall bad report, flushed down the drain faster than you can say "bob's your uncle," never to be seen again--to the point that many 5e fans now don't even know they existed. We're almost certainly never going to see PrCs, multi-class subclasses, or a variety of other "failed" UA material, because the design culture of 5e is "if it doesn't poll well, it's EVIL TOXIN FROM THE ABYSS." Unless it's Traditional™, then they'll just keep iterating on it. It took [I]several[/I] rounds for them to abandon the idea of an actual psionic class, for example, because an actual psionic class was Traditional™ (meaning, it existed in 2e and/or 3e.) I may be cynical and salty on this subject, but I don't feel I'm reaching when I say the current design team treats a single bad response, no matter what the underlying reason may be, as reason to yeet ideas with extreme prejudice. Even when the bad response is "this is too good, [I]buff the stuff we already have[/I] so that it won't be broken," they will instead nerf the new stuff. (See: Storm Sorcerers [I]originally[/I] got bonus spells, and instead of saying, "hey, yeah, we hear you that Dragon/Chaos Sorcerers are a bit lacking in the spell department, we'll fix that," they went with "oh, okay, we get it, Storm Sorcerer is too powerful--we'll nerf it to match the other Sorcerers!") It's a pattern at this point. Go for the low-hanging fruit. Take no risks. Do nothing mechanical that might be unappreciated. I'm [I]honestly[/I] still surprised that they actually made an Artificer class. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Strixhaven: Curriculum of Chaos No Subclasses Confirmed by James Crawford
Top