D&D 5E To Crunch or not to Crunch?

[Mercule]

I have no real interest in more crunch for the sake of crunch. After the tomes of feats, PrCs, etc. in 3.5, I'm kinda done with that treadmill and it actually repulses me a bit.

Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to seeing the 5E Psion/Mystic completed. I'd also like to see a fully developed Artificer that fits in with Eberron, along with some other Eberron specific goods (the old UA offering really didn't float my boat).

So, I'm not totally anti-crunch. I just want them to stick with crunch that adds value beyond trying to optimize character builds or other random stuff. Fill in some conceptual gaps as they arise and resources allow, but do go looking for excuses to churn out crunch. Also, ensure that settings that have mechanical needs (legacy classes, races, etc.) are appropriately supported.

 

[ccs]

Overall I'm happy as is. Other than additional monster books, they could stop now as far as I'm concerned.
But I know we'll get more non-monster stuff.

 

[MoonSong]

Hiya!

Seems a poll is in order of late...

Some folks want more CRUNCH from WotC...some want just the amount they are putting out...some want less than what the are putting out. I'm not sure how popular or unpopular these various choices are here on EnWorld, so I figured I'd pop up a poll to get a quick read on where EnWorld sits on the issue.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Exactly why did this poll had to be public??

 

[Tallifer]

I have yet to digest all the rules we already have. Any extra options my players could desire can be satisfied by the DMs Guild.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Exactly why did this poll had to be public??

Why wouldn't it be public?

 

[MoonSong]

Why wouldn't it be public?

This is a poll on a particularly volatile topic that got a long thread closed over the weekend. By attaching names to the poll options the OP is unwittingly drawing a line in the sand that invites like-minded people while painting the opposition as extremists. The option isn't "More crunch pliz", instead is "Open the floodgates let's drown in crunch!"

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

This is a poll on a particularly volatile topic that got a long thread closed over the weekend. By attaching names to the poll options the OP is unwittingly drawing a line in the sand that invites like-minded people while painting the opposition as extremists. The option isn't "More crunch pliz", instead is "Open the floodgates let's drown in crunch!"

This is a decent reason to dislike the wording of the poll's answer options, or even a good reason to ask "Why does this poll exist?".

It isn't, however, a reason why the poll would exist with private results, so I remain confused as to why the results of this poll wouldn't be public.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm with the group that wants a little but not a lot more crunch. Particularly when it comes to character options. Getting the mystic and artificer done, a better warlord, the revised ranger, anda few more subclasses should pretty much cap the pc building options off, imo, or character building will slow to a crawl with option-glut. We should be very careful when adding feats.

There can be quite a bit of DM stuff added to the game, though. Optional systems. Monsters can be added to (or completely redesiged.) I'd like more traps, too.

I'd be very sparing with Magic Items, though.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Waterbizkit]

So I picked the middle option because the way I'm looking at this poll is that it's as much about the release schedule as it is about how much crunch we're seeing in what's released. Either way you slice it I'm relatively happy with it all. If we keep getting a couple of APs and one "crunch" book a year I'll be fine with that.

I've still got every book they ever released for 3/3.5e and looking at it now it's pretty awful. It's too much, at least for me. I see that hoard of books and get a shiver just thinking about actually trying to run a game with it all. Now, would I be obligated to allow it all? No, of course not. But certainly "feels" nicer to me to think about running 5e now than it does the bloated corpse of 3.x.

Anyway, I'm all for new options... simply in moderation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm fine with things the way they are. I wouldn't mind some new material, but I'd prefer anything like that to actually fit a niche not already addressed. So the Artificer and the Mystic classes seem okay to me because at least they are something thematically different from what we have. I also don't mind a few more subclasses, although I am not overly impressed with many of the UA options.

So at this time, I'd have to lean toward the Crunchy Enough option because I know there will be more no matter what....so I just hope they keep it reined in. I say this not because I want to deny anyone else the options they'd like to see, but rather out of personal preference, and out of the belief that I think the slower release is better for the edition.