Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana:Are they revealing limitations in the 5th edition system?

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Sure. I have, too. And, I've played far more expansive ones, and had fun with them, too. You can make your own fun with even the sketchiest game, but a good game can handle quite a lot of material before it collapses from its own weight. 5e, happily, has the potential to cater to both extremes, from using the basic pdf, alone, to PH w/o optional rules, to pulling in DMG modules & the like selectively, to allowing everything WotC so much as tosses off in a UA, to anything-goes.

OK, those last two may become a tad reckless as options expand. In hearkening back to the classic game, 5e has opened itself up to some classic issues, too. But it's just a matter of being a bit selective about what you allow. There's always going to be 'basic only' or 'Core only' as conservative, unchanging (but for the rare errata) options.

 

[Corpsetaker]

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.

I just want to chime in with a few things.

You see, there are a few posters on these boards who really enjoy exaggerating things. The biggest thing has been when it comes to options. Any time you ask for more options you are suddenly accused of wanting SPAT SPLAT SPLAT and GLUT GLUT GLUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is also assumed that its' always players options.

Personally I feel like these people just can't come up with an argument that defeats "moderation". There are a lot of us who want more variety but want them in moderation.

Anyway, I do agree with your post overall.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Betteridge's law of headlines appears to also apply to "titles of 5e threads started by Corpsetaker".

No!

 

[Corpsetaker]

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.

What makes you think it's always players options people are asking for? I have stated over and over that I would like to see more DM oriented stuff but we seem to get that same old exaggerated approach that all we want is TONS of players options like in 3rd and 4th edition.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

What makes you think it's always players options people are asking for? I have stated over and over that I would like to see more DM oriented stuff but we seem to get that same old exaggerated approach that all we want is TONS of players options like in 3rd and 4th edition.

What sort of DM-oriented stuff would you like to see?

 

[Guest 6801328]

What makes you think it's always players options people are asking for? I have stated over and over that I would like to see more DM oriented stuff but we seem to get that same old exaggerated approach that all we want is TONS of players options like in 3rd and 4th edition.

Well, what makes you think by "more rules" and "more options" I only meant player options? (And, to echo Capn Kobold, what sort or DM oriented stuff do you want?)

Don't get me wrong, I like new options, and eagerly read UA (even if I only actually like 3 of the recent subclasses) and look forward to new supplements.

It's just that I...can't find any reason to expend brain cells getting upset in between releases. It's not like I've come anywhere near exploring all the storytelling potential of what we've got.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Any time you ask for more options you are suddenly accused of wanting SPAT SPLAT SPLAT and GLUT GLUT GLUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is also assumed that its' always players options.

Personally I feel like these people just can't come up with an argument that defeats "moderation".

The game can present a glut of splat options, but a given DM can opt into them only in moderation, for instance.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

This is misleading. If you wanted to play a particular Prestige Class in 3E, you pretty much had to have everything lined up at level 1. They guaranteed this by putting prerequisites for every Prestige Class which you were unlikely to meet if you weren't planning to take that class, and they did it as a sort of balancing measure so that the class features could be awesome since you were paying the cost by taking worthless feats and skills.

The rest of your post is spot on.

 

[Uchawi]

Mechanics have no limitations, but it may show some limits on the assumptions they made when creating the initial classes. I would call it a scope problem, and anything that strays outside that circle may question the base assumptions.

 

[SkidAce]

What I believe we are seeing here is someone going from one chocolate bar to the next without even finishing the first. I want to see some actually expansion on the current mechanics. We are getting bombarded with Subclasses like 3rd edition did with PrC's.

There are no where near as many subclasses as there were PrCs.