D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[delericho]

Even the UA offerings thus far

Read what I actually said: 3e's "Unearthed Arcana".

Your subjective, agenda-based opinion is duly noted. I request you please refrain from trying to present such things as fact. Appreciated.

The irony is strong with this one.

 

[delericho]

But, I believe what Corwin is getting at is that those are incredibly broad, and actually at least a few of them overlap.

Nonetheless, they are examples of the kind of material that could be presented. If you really want specific examples, previous editions are rife with them: the Scout, Cavalier, Warmage, Soulknife, Incarnate, Jester...

Yes, many or even all of these could be subclasses. And many or all of these could be made setting-specific. Or, equally, they could not.

 

[Corwin]

Read what I actually said: 3e's "Unearthed Arcana".

So you wanted to be irrelevant? We are in a 5e forum, sir. Please don't derail things further with discussions of material several editions in the past.

The irony is strong with this one.

Come again? Care to spell that out? Or are you just resorting to ad hominem in the hopes no one will notice and think you are making an actual point?

 

[Corwin]

Scout

Covered in the PHB and variations in UA.

Cavalier

Covered in the PHB and variations in UA.

Warmage

Covered in the PHB.

Soulknife

Can you site a previous incarnation that did not have settings references?

Incarnate

Can you site a previous incarnation that did not have settings references?

Jester

Covered in UA.

 

[delericho]

So you wanted to be irrelevant? We are in a 5e forum, sir. Please don't derail things further with discussions of material several editions in the past.

You want examples of the kind of general products I and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] would like to see in future. There you go: I want a product like that.

Come again? Care to spell that out? Or are you just resorting to ad hominem in the hopes no one will notice and think you are making an actual point?

Your argument is no less subjective, and no less opinion-based. And you're no less prone to misrepresenting your opinions as fact.

 

[delericho]

Covered in the PHB and variations in UA.


Covered in the PHB and variations in UA.


Covered in the PHB.


Can you site a previous incarnation that did not have settings references?


Can you site a previous incarnation that did not have settings references?


Covered in UA.

Irrelevant. There have been hundreds of classes in the history of D&D, many of which haven't been covered for 5e. Shockingly, I didn't list them all.

 

[Zhern]

The dearth of WotC official "general content" is being filled by some quality 3rd party publishers. It really is a shame that some are too close-minded to even give them a look since they are only depriving themselves of the benefit. So continue on the fanboi crusade for a WotC official stamp on general content books and keep hoping they will meet your requirements and release the exact content you are looking for. A secret for you - it very likely won't happen. They have a brand, official setting, and an established road map to manage for 5e. They will release based on what has the widest appeal and offers the best coverage of as much content and crunch in a single book as possible. That isn't to say that won't change but the odds are very, very slim based on what Mearls has repeated often.

 

[Corwin]

You want examples of the kind of general products I and @Maxperson would like to see in future. There you go: I want a product like that.

Like the 3e UA? That's easy: The 5e DMG already did that. Or was there something else you wanted to point out about the 3e UA that the 5e DMG isn't representing?

Your argument is no less subjective, and no less opinion-based. And you're no less prone to misrepresenting your opinions as fact.

That's your opinion.

 

[Corwin]

Irrelevant.

That's a well considered retort. Thanks for contributing to the conversation by carrying your side of it so thoughtfully.

There have been hundreds of classes in the history of D&D, many of which haven't been covered for 5e.

Are you sure? I don't believe that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The dearth of WotC official "general content" is being filled by some quality 3rd party publishers. It really is a shame that some are too close-minded to even give them a look since they are only depriving themselves of the benefit. So continue on the fanboi crusade for a WotC official stamp on general content books and keep hoping they will meet your requirements and release the exact content you are looking for. A secret for you - it very likely won't happen. They have a brand, official setting, and an established road map to manage for 5e. They will release based on what has the widest appeal and offers the best coverage of as much content and crunch in a single book as possible. That isn't to say that won't change but the odds are very, very slim based on what Mearls has repeated often.

Yeah, like it or hate it, WoTC has been very clear on their approach with classes. Rather than have class bloat (like 3e), they are taking an approach of greater customization. I.e., rather than have 150 unique classes/subclasses, they've got your core, and you augment those core with customization via feats and backgrounds. E.g., rather than have a separate fightery rogue type class, you can be a fighter with a criminal background and dungeon delver feat or something like that.

Personally, IMO, I like this approach better. I'd rather have the tools and get my hands dirty creating things than a completed premade list of classes. I understand how others have different opinions.

The second part of that is 3PP support. 5e has expanded on the OGL significantly with the DMs Guild. It's a clear message to everyone that WoTC has no intention of doing splat bloat, but is leaving that up to the fanbase. I also support that. Some of the best material in the history of RPGs have been fan creations. Heck, wasn't Ebberon a fan creation?

So at this point, while everyone does have the right to complain about something not being there, if we know the business model of WoTC, what's the point in doing so about things we already know the answers to? WoTC has given us the solutions. It might not be the solutions everyone wants, but it's still a solution that does exist.