Sacrosanct
Legend
Apparently, saying something and then immediately denying you ever said it is pretty en vogue right now....
Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana:Are they revealing limitations in the 5th edition system?
Apparently, saying something and then immediately denying you ever said it is pretty en vogue right now....
Willie the Duck
Hero
I can see the logic in that and even get behind it some. Can you, and maybe even go a little overboard (exaggerate for effect), give an example of what you personally would like to see
Are you thinking along the lines of the Mystic (or to a lesser extent Artificer)? Something like a brand new mechanic, vaguely in the same level-of-departure-from-what's-come-before as the battlemaster, but not the same? Some totally new mechanic (exaggerated example, a smurf class, with a separate smurfiness score that you keep track of throughout the adventure, which gives some benefit)? Basically, what could they come up with in one of these UAs that would make you say, "There. Now they're experimenting!"?
Well, wasn't the favored soul a pretty good departure for the sorcerer? I'll agree, the wizard hasn't seen much deviation from the baseline (clerics too). Warlocks I think are pretty well divergent from, well, all the other classes, but that might just be me.
The-Magic-Sword
Small Ball Archmage
I don't think so, i think we're seeing the baby step transition from 5e as the "simple" edition, to 5e as the inclusive "scaling modular complexity" edition. The Player's handbook and such have elements of that already- feats are optional, multiclassing is optional, different class options offer variously complex playstyles ranging from simple as the champion fighter to as complex as a druid or wizard.
Going forward, they have the base game, all the way down to it's simplest form (the basic rules as found online with no rule variants in play)- this is the point where we start to see some of that modular content that let's folks tailor campaigns to their tastes. Many of the UA options play with ideas that aren't universal, the knight's marking mechanic, the "niche-mixing" subclasses like the scout, Mearls has a big section on crafting/downtime activities coming up, some of the options (like the planar ranger?) really wouldn't fit very well into every genre of game, the class options coming soon are the artificer (the magitech engineer!) and the psionic (the borderline sci-fi psychic!) both of which are controversial to purists but are important components in many games (eberron and dark sun, for instance.)
We're expanding, not contracting, the Designers are even playing with new ideas to go further in the future mechanically.
The slow release schedule seems to have people under the impression that the edition is done, and that 5e's claim to fame is being stripped-down, mass market, pure DND. But the design, ever since we were reading legend and lore columns at the end of 4e's life span- was the have a basic, durable core to the game, and then branch out with all sorts of options for Parties to tailor their game styles. Mearls called the book currently in the works "the first-major-rules-expansion" to 5e, which marks it's release as the end of an era, we're shifting up to second gear. It's time to see what 5e is really like once the foundation is established. As a homebrewer I know a lot can be done with this system- ranging from a huge multitude of new character options, and neat mechanics, to expanded variant subsystems for folks that like character building, the publication of new settings, rules to enhance different genres.
They evidently have a 10 year plan (subject to change of course) for this edition, and I find it hard to imagine that they're running out of gas not even halfway through. I think every few years, the season setting will change- moving from forgotten realms to eberron, and onwards. Each of these will be major expansion points, with adventures built specifically to go with them, AL support, and a whole to-do not dissimilar to an MMORPG expansion. The slow release schedule means each of these books will be getting love as folks will have had time to recover (they've discussed the impact of fatigue on sales). If each is presented in a relatively isolated way, we'll never have the sales-killing "numbered sequel drain." New players will have a wide variety of products for optional use their their core DND game, and feel that they can determine to pick-and-choose or collect at their discretion, as each setting rotates out of "standard." The magic reference of course is intentional.
Some of us will be playing DND "modern" with all of the 5e options at our fingertips as they come out and mixing it all together freely- artificers, defilers, and wizards of high sorcery. Some of us will be following with AL, focusing on DND "Standard" and focusing on each new setup as it comes out, others will probably be focusing on the products that satisfy our niche interest- playing DND "Eberron" or DND "Dark Sun" or whatever specifically long after it's made it's way through standard. This is all speculation of course, but I hope that I'm right, I really don't want another edition transition any time soon, and this model would actually be really satisfying.
Going forward, they have the base game, all the way down to it's simplest form (the basic rules as found online with no rule variants in play)- this is the point where we start to see some of that modular content that let's folks tailor campaigns to their tastes. Many of the UA options play with ideas that aren't universal, the knight's marking mechanic, the "niche-mixing" subclasses like the scout, Mearls has a big section on crafting/downtime activities coming up, some of the options (like the planar ranger?) really wouldn't fit very well into every genre of game, the class options coming soon are the artificer (the magitech engineer!) and the psionic (the borderline sci-fi psychic!) both of which are controversial to purists but are important components in many games (eberron and dark sun, for instance.)
We're expanding, not contracting, the Designers are even playing with new ideas to go further in the future mechanically.
The slow release schedule seems to have people under the impression that the edition is done, and that 5e's claim to fame is being stripped-down, mass market, pure DND. But the design, ever since we were reading legend and lore columns at the end of 4e's life span- was the have a basic, durable core to the game, and then branch out with all sorts of options for Parties to tailor their game styles. Mearls called the book currently in the works "the first-major-rules-expansion" to 5e, which marks it's release as the end of an era, we're shifting up to second gear. It's time to see what 5e is really like once the foundation is established. As a homebrewer I know a lot can be done with this system- ranging from a huge multitude of new character options, and neat mechanics, to expanded variant subsystems for folks that like character building, the publication of new settings, rules to enhance different genres.
They evidently have a 10 year plan (subject to change of course) for this edition, and I find it hard to imagine that they're running out of gas not even halfway through. I think every few years, the season setting will change- moving from forgotten realms to eberron, and onwards. Each of these will be major expansion points, with adventures built specifically to go with them, AL support, and a whole to-do not dissimilar to an MMORPG expansion. The slow release schedule means each of these books will be getting love as folks will have had time to recover (they've discussed the impact of fatigue on sales). If each is presented in a relatively isolated way, we'll never have the sales-killing "numbered sequel drain." New players will have a wide variety of products for optional use their their core DND game, and feel that they can determine to pick-and-choose or collect at their discretion, as each setting rotates out of "standard." The magic reference of course is intentional.
Some of us will be playing DND "modern" with all of the 5e options at our fingertips as they come out and mixing it all together freely- artificers, defilers, and wizards of high sorcery. Some of us will be following with AL, focusing on DND "Standard" and focusing on each new setup as it comes out, others will probably be focusing on the products that satisfy our niche interest- playing DND "Eberron" or DND "Dark Sun" or whatever specifically long after it's made it's way through standard. This is all speculation of course, but I hope that I'm right, I really don't want another edition transition any time soon, and this model would actually be really satisfying.
Meh. If you don't want anymore sub-classes, fine, stop paying attention to them, don't use 'em. I can see being disappointed at the lack of something you still want, but not angered at the surfeit of things others' want.
Ranger-as-scout has baggage: it's a nature-oriented caster. Fighter-as-scout has issues, too, it's a tough-DPR frontliner. Rogue-as-scout has the inverse issue as the fighter. Depending on what sort of 'scout' you want - magicky nature dude stalking about, badass stalking about, expert stalking about - yeah, several might be called for. Then there's feats and backgrounds.
Which is elegant, in a way. At least not many stacking bonuses. Sure. Not a very meaningful comparison. RPGs, by their very nature, aren't too terribly limited, 4e certainly not standing out for being particularly more so than usual, even less so, by D&D standards (D&D's traditions like class/level, Vancian magic, and the like /are/ somewhat limiting). 5e may be back to a more traditional presentation of classes and smaller numbers (when it comes to d20 modifiers), but it subverts that do a degree. Hps/damage scale rapidly, so there's room for advancement & modifiers in spite of BA. Classes are back to locking concepts down with mechanics, but there's lots of sub-classes and independently-chosen, customizeable backgrounds to round characters out. And there are 'modular' options the DM can opt into or out of. Every new option that comes out is just that, optional - bloat only happens if the DM bloats his campaign, if he picks and chooses options, no bloat.
And, most of all, 5e, like the classic game, is very open to being modded, making it, ultimately, completely unlimited, even when it hasn't got that much material out yet.
I have a player getting very bored by the lack of crunch and the limitations of the advantage mechanic. Everything in the seems to be about getting advantage in some fashion and once you have it, other abilities that give advantage become useless. And that's a lot of useless abilities.
Sure, you can reskin or rename or attack a diffferent saving throw, but it starts to feel ultimately the same.
That's why I feel players of 5E are far better off not worrying too much about mechanical choices or complexity, focusing instead on story, character development, and world immersion. 5E makes the mechanics easy, so your mind can spend more time in the imaginary world and less time in the real world with your nose buried in rulebooks.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
I'm in the opposite camp. First, however, I have to state I don't use *any* UA stuff in my 5e game. No need for it. Anything that isn't "normal" in the PHB can usually be done via back story, background, fluff and roleplaying; anything that needs more than that can easily get a titt-for-tatt (e.g., you don't get X ability, you get Y in stead). When a PC needs something more tangible (re: game mechanic'ey) to really distinguish their character, I *never* just give them something; they loose something first, then get something to fill it. Usually the two trades are equivalent.
Adding expanded mechanics that are 'specific' to some particular class without seriously thinking about the world consequences of doing so is, imho, the worst thing a DM can do to his game. I think this is what the designers have finally (!) figured out; Take a class, change the name, swap out "Gets +2 to AC when using weapon and shield" with "Gets +2 AC when using rapier and main gauche" and presto change-o, you have a "new ability". Drop a higher levels "Action Surge", and replace with "Flurry", which basically does the same thing, with slightly different descriptions, and again, you have a "new ability". Are they, mechanically, the same? Hell yeah. But so is a LOT of stuff in 5e; Attacking with a crossbow? Roll d20. A thrown dagger? Roll d20. A two-handed sword? Roll d20. Each of those weapons *could* be given a whole new mechanic, because each is vastly different in use and execution. Why no complaints about those? Because the purpose of the game is to have fun and give everyone at the table a sense of familiarity and predictability.
With "new mechanics for new classes", that whole premise of familiarity and predictability goes out the window. By the end of a session every player, and especially the poor DM, would be all googley-eyed at looking up different rules for each PC, each monster, each NPC, etc...and when asked "So, what happened last session?", nobody would be able to describe the same events because their brains were so distracted by all the differing mechanics that all pretty much yielded the same result: "You take 9hp damage".
More mechanics? No thanks. The 5e D&D game isn't about mechanics...it's about ease of play, speed of play, and DM empowerment to give his players what they want...himself...without some outside DM dictating "The RAW" (just got an image of the 5e DMG with a 'judge' helmet on and a lopsided, square-jawed mouth screaming ..."I *AM* THE RAW!"... hehe...)
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I'm in the opposite camp. First, however, I have to state I don't use *any* UA stuff in my 5e game. No need for it. Anything that isn't "normal" in the PHB can usually be done via back story, background, fluff and roleplaying; anything that needs more than that can easily get a titt-for-tatt (e.g., you don't get X ability, you get Y in stead). When a PC needs something more tangible (re: game mechanic'ey) to really distinguish their character, I *never* just give them something; they loose something first, then get something to fill it. Usually the two trades are equivalent.
Adding expanded mechanics that are 'specific' to some particular class without seriously thinking about the world consequences of doing so is, imho, the worst thing a DM can do to his game. I think this is what the designers have finally (!) figured out; Take a class, change the name, swap out "Gets +2 to AC when using weapon and shield" with "Gets +2 AC when using rapier and main gauche" and presto change-o, you have a "new ability". Drop a higher levels "Action Surge", and replace with "Flurry", which basically does the same thing, with slightly different descriptions, and again, you have a "new ability". Are they, mechanically, the same? Hell yeah. But so is a LOT of stuff in 5e; Attacking with a crossbow? Roll d20. A thrown dagger? Roll d20. A two-handed sword? Roll d20. Each of those weapons *could* be given a whole new mechanic, because each is vastly different in use and execution. Why no complaints about those? Because the purpose of the game is to have fun and give everyone at the table a sense of familiarity and predictability.
With "new mechanics for new classes", that whole premise of familiarity and predictability goes out the window. By the end of a session every player, and especially the poor DM, would be all googley-eyed at looking up different rules for each PC, each monster, each NPC, etc...and when asked "So, what happened last session?", nobody would be able to describe the same events because their brains were so distracted by all the differing mechanics that all pretty much yielded the same result: "You take 9hp damage".
More mechanics? No thanks. The 5e D&D game isn't about mechanics...it's about ease of play, speed of play, and DM empowerment to give his players what they want...himself...without some outside DM dictating "The RAW" (just got an image of the 5e DMG with a 'judge' helmet on and a lopsided, square-jawed mouth screaming ..."I *AM* THE RAW!"... hehe...)
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Chaosmancer
Legend
I felt myself agreeing with the point of view we could use some more mechanically.... adventurous(?) mechanics. But then I looked back over the past couple of UAs and I was a little surprised.
Barbarian UA introduced mechanics for class based damaging auras, which are not spells (important mechanical distinction). They also introduced passing your passive buffs to another PC.
Bards gave us magical unfluencing that is undetectable if failed, representing multiple different types of stories from the people who are "just that good" to those with subtle auras of manipulation or corruption (also were not spells)
Druid gave us pools of dice for "magical energy" that could be expended at any time. They also gave us rolling for the duration of a cooldown.
Fighter gave us marking mechanics, and mechanics for interrupting initiative and receiving an additional turn. Bonus action stances and the concept of magical "trick attacks" from which a player can choose.
Monk gave us new ways to influence social situations without needing rolls
The new ranger gives us a sub-class that transforms and whose new abilities are mostly improvements upon that form instead of things they could do outside of it.
Not all of it was good, not every UA or every subclass had something, but they have been trying out some new mechanics during this blitz period. Honestly, as much as I love getting new stuff all the time.... getting new stuff all the time makes it hard to keep up and keep track of what we have now.
Also, to reiterate what some others have said. We don't have two scouts. We have the Fighter Scout UA, which is not official, and we have what I assume is the new version of that which is the Rogue Scout. Just like I'm pretty sure the Cavalier became the Knight. I'm perfectly fine with them letting names and mechanics drift until they find their perfect home.
Barbarian UA introduced mechanics for class based damaging auras, which are not spells (important mechanical distinction). They also introduced passing your passive buffs to another PC.
Bards gave us magical unfluencing that is undetectable if failed, representing multiple different types of stories from the people who are "just that good" to those with subtle auras of manipulation or corruption (also were not spells)
Druid gave us pools of dice for "magical energy" that could be expended at any time. They also gave us rolling for the duration of a cooldown.
Fighter gave us marking mechanics, and mechanics for interrupting initiative and receiving an additional turn. Bonus action stances and the concept of magical "trick attacks" from which a player can choose.
Monk gave us new ways to influence social situations without needing rolls
The new ranger gives us a sub-class that transforms and whose new abilities are mostly improvements upon that form instead of things they could do outside of it.
Not all of it was good, not every UA or every subclass had something, but they have been trying out some new mechanics during this blitz period. Honestly, as much as I love getting new stuff all the time.... getting new stuff all the time makes it hard to keep up and keep track of what we have now.
Also, to reiterate what some others have said. We don't have two scouts. We have the Fighter Scout UA, which is not official, and we have what I assume is the new version of that which is the Rogue Scout. Just like I'm pretty sure the Cavalier became the Knight. I'm perfectly fine with them letting names and mechanics drift until they find their perfect home.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Good post, pming.
I don't understand all the clamor for more options, more rules, more classes, more crunch. I've played far more limited RPGs and had fun with them for years. For me the fun is in the stories my characters engage in, not the mechanics listed on the sheet. Sure, I like to have some variety, and I want my character to have different mechanical strengths and weaknesses than the other characters in the party, but it doesn't take much in that department to keep me happy.
I don't understand all the clamor for more options, more rules, more classes, more crunch. I've played far more limited RPGs and had fun with them for years. For me the fun is in the stories my characters engage in, not the mechanics listed on the sheet. Sure, I like to have some variety, and I want my character to have different mechanical strengths and weaknesses than the other characters in the party, but it doesn't take much in that department to keep me happy.
I do. D&D players have been trained to expect it. It started in the 90s with 2nd edition - the assumption that you would be getting regular expansions to the game via splatbooks, or settings, or just rules expansions. That TSR (and later Wizards) would be putting out at least one book a month, probably more. That assumption continued into 3rd edition and to a large degree became even more expected because in 2nd edition most of the character options that expansions would add were for new characters you were going to make while in 3rd edition the expansions were new things like Prestige Classes and Feats that you could add to your current character. 4th edition continued that trend to the point that they changed the writing focus and design focus to make it very obvious to everyone exactly how expansions would plug in to the design.
The 5th edition release isn't just a return to a simpler version of D&D, it's a return to a different set of publishing expectations. Expectations that nobody has had for the game's release schedule really since the early to mid 80s. In that time period TSR mostly released adventures and other DM-focused material for D&D - where you did get player expansions it was generally in the form of entirely new classes or the occasional subsystem (like proficiencies) and mixed in with DM material (as in the original expansions like Greyhawk and Blackmoor and then later expansions like Unearthed Arcana and the Dungeoneers Survival Guide). That early-to-mid 80s pattern seems to be what Wizards is going for right now and while I personally am a bigger fan of the "fewer releases, fewer rules expansions" model, it's completely understandable that for folks who think that a "typical" D&D release schedule looks more like the 90s or the early 2000s it would be really jarring to not see major rules expansions for years.
Edwin Suijkerbuijk
Explorer
The only place I can see where one might run into truble is with the policy they seem to have about only adding things never taking away.
So when designing a subclass you might be "stuck" with some features of the base class that don't fit well and you can't get rid of.
Similar Threads
