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

[Tony Vargas]

Was someone arguing that it doesn't?

You seem to be offering a counterpoint to the desire for such inclusion with this:

But how do the "We need more classes!" crowd reconcile the fact that 5e has provided more distinct character classes/builds/archetypes/whatever than the various editions of the past, within the same number of start-up years?

 

[delericho]

5e has a much narrower release schedule for material officially from WoTC, but I imagine at some point there will be an additional thing that is PHB2-ish in the future.

Sure. And when it comes out, I'll buy it. But until it comes out it's staying on my "I want this book" list, rather than my "I have this book" list.

Volo's guide is essentially a MM2, and is being received extremely well so far.

I'm withholding judgement on VGtM until I've read it, but my initial reaction was strongly negative (and lost in the crash), precisely because it's only about a third of an MM2.

But as I said, I'll review once I've read it; it might yet surprise me.

So I would not be surprised to see a Volo's Guide to the Exotic Adventurer, or something like that. Where it's presented as him explaining the exotic professions he's ran across in his travels. I know it would be harder to do that, since balancing classes/subclasses is more complex than balancing monsters.

I would totally buy something like that.

Sure. I would prefer such a book to be general rather than setting specific, but if it's useful...

 

[Corwin]

Psionics is presented in Appendix 1 of the ADnD PHB on page 110.

Agreed. But you didn't play a "psionicist." You played a wizard, or fighter, or whatever. And with a good roll, got a few broken powers to play with. Are you guys saying this is what you want in 5e psionics? I'm starting to get confused by all this 1e psionics love. Or is it that it is the only thing to cling to when it comes to 5e's "failings"?

 

[Corwin]

You seem to be offering a counterpoint to the desire for such inclusion with this:

So you countered by offering a 1e optional rule that was not part of character creation? Not in the sense of decisions points or choices, at least. Which has been my point. 5e has more of those.

 

[Tony Vargas]

**duplicate***

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you countered by offering a 1e optional rule that was not part of character creation?

Random and optional, but still a part of character creation. If you discount randomness, you disqualify much of 1e (random stat generation plus minimum stat requirements to enter a class could even remove class as a choice), which is certainly not in keeping with 5e's philosophy. If you disqualify optional rules, Feats & MCing disappear from consideration for 5e.

You, yourself, made the point that the exact mechanics needn't be duplicated.

Not in the sense of decisions points or choices, at least. Which has been my point. 5e has more of those.

5e surely presents more decisions points than the 1e PH, but does not include the possibility of a psionic character - yet. So, when someone is waiting impatiently for the Mystic, it's hardly relevant to point out the greater number of options, since the one he's awaiting still isn't there.

If you care to affirm 5e's aim of inclusiveness, and the right of the "'We need more classes!' crowd" to express their desire to be so included, or even that 5e has room for a few such additions, we can drop this little digression.

 

[Azzy]

This thread will eat itself.

 

[Corpsetaker]

But what if the amount of product was the *result* of bad management?

But it wasn't. You are trying to simplify the closing of TSR in a way to justify your ridiculous argument about a release schedule.

Here are the reasons for why TSR went down.

1: The Blume brothers and their extravagant spending.

2: Lorraine Williams and her horrible money management of the company as a whole, among many other things she did internally that had nothing to do with the game.

3: CCG's

4: TSR's answer to the CCG craze. (Spellfire and Dragon Dice).

5: Tons of unsold hard back novels.

6: Now there was a theory, that was never confirmed, that lucrative products and the many settings didn't help, even though they were very popular. They could have put out tons of books but limited their settings.

1 through 5 were what really brought the company down. Not the release schedule nonsense.

 

[Corwin]

Random and optional, but still a part of character creation. If you discount randomness, you disqualify much of 1e (random stat generation plus minimum stat requirements to enter a class could even remove class as a choice), which is certainly not in keeping with 5e's philosophy. If you disqualify optional rules, Feats & MCing disappear from consideration for 5e.

During what part of character creation did you make the decision point to become a psionicist in 1e?

5e surely presents more decisions points than the 1e PH, but does not include the possibility of a psionic character - yet.

Sure it does. There are several references in multiple core books about using magic and just calling it psychic.

So, when someone is waiting impatiently for the Mystic, it's hardly relevant to point out the greater number of options, since the one he's awaiting still isn't there.

There will *always* be someone waiting for *something*. I fail to see the point being made here.

If you care to affirm 5e's aim of inclusiveness, and the right of the "'We need more classes!' crows" to express their desire to be so included, or even that 5e has room for a few such additions, we can drop this little digression.

Again, if the only metric for success is that no one is waiting for their particular pet concept, no system has ever succeeded.

Also, thanks for mischaracterizing my original question by claiming I called people "crows" instead of "crowd". Subtle, but well played. But when I asked that question, I was specific in "more". That 5e has more choices and options. You were the one trying to bring in specific missing minutia and optional tack-on features in the back of the book. Not me.

 

[Corwin]

But it wasn't.

Says you?