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

[Corpsetaker]

You forgot that they were also selling their box sets for less then the cost of making them.

That's called lucrative products. Already mentioned that.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Says you?

???

Says the little thing called facts. When you get to the point of answers like this then it's time to ignore that individual because they aren't going to accept it no matter what.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Briefly, I am not sure what your point of contention is.

Not every reply is all about contention.

Finally, while I agree with DM empowerment, we have seen enough threads where people have complained that they have a (3e DM, AL DM, etc.) wherein they only can play "official" product; I don't think it's too much to ask that the official product not be broken, and as such, care should be taken with new classes by acknowledging that new classes do impact the game.

I'm afraid it may very well be too much to ask, since 'broken' is ultimately relative and contextual in a game like 5e, and DM Empowerment means the context in which the official product might find itself, and what it might be broken relative to, is in the DM's bailiwick. As to the understandable complaint that a given DM is unwilling to dive fully into the role 5e leaves open for him, well... horses, water, you know the old saw... I would be sad to have to just say 'find a better DM.'
But, life's sad sometimes.

 

[Corwin]

???

Says the little thing called facts. When you get to the point of answers like this then it's time to ignore that individual because they aren't going to accept it no matter what.

So you are officially planting your flag in the "my opinion is as good as fact" hill? And we all just need to accept it?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you are officially planting your flag in the "my opinion is as good as fact" hill? And we all just need to accept it?

The facts in question have even been cited (or is that a different thread? I'm having trouble keeping up!)...

Well, I often tell people to find a better table. But they all can't play at mine.

Exactly, yes.

But for those that are unsatisfied with that response, I think it is reasonable to say that the delay in the requested "crunch" is because WoTC is trying the novel and unprecedented idea of a slower release schedule which would allow for material that has been polled (desired) as well as playtested (not broken).

I hope I didn't give the impression of being satisfied with the necessity of that response. ;(
But, no, I don't think that's too reasonable an explanation. There's nothing unprecedented about slower releases, 1e came out with a year between core books, for instance. They'd write a book, publish it, and use the proceeds to publish the next one. It was more a matter of resources than anything else. 5e has been done almost on a shoestring, so of course the pace of release is necessarily slow. That a lot of us long-time fans are more than fine with that - out of nostalgia and/or bloat concerns - is all to the good. I'm sure the polled thing is as real as it can be, and the polls in question were done extensively back during the playtest, and don't exactly consume a lot of time. Inside playtesting must happen, but built-in balances isn't an important factor this time around. So I wouldn't lay the 'blame' (or credit) for the slow pacing with either of those.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

When was that? You mean after the announcement of a new edition and very shortly before a two year hiatus? When the hobby shrank to just a bit more than one third its former size?

That's the time you mean?

One great thing about a market shrinking to a third it's former size because the 400lb gorilla took a powder - there's amazing 'growth' potential when it comes back!

Couple that with any coattail effect from the explosion in board-game popularity...

I think it's the idea of where a "class" comes from in the first place. They seem to mostly be based on archetypes found in fiction. The possible exception to this, at least initially, is clerics. Yes there are priestly types found in fiction, but their role as healers in the game is purely a mechanical aspect.

Both good points.

So, is it better to base a class around some archetype, or around some mechanical need or desire in the game space? A blend of the two seems the most likely answer, but if we had to pick, my choice would be the archetype.

It'd probably be better not to keep using the class construct just because D&D always has. But that's soooo not on option. ;P Given that only two poor options are worthy of consideration, yes, I agree that basing classes on fictional archetypes is sensible. I'm not sure the Cleric is the only example of D&D deviating from that sense, though.

The 3e Sorcerer, for instance, is a class vehicle for a novel mechanic - spontaneous casting. Likwise the later 3.5 Warlock (and Warmage), for at-will casting. The 5e Warlock works because it has a newly unique mechanical schtick, sort-rest-recharge casting, while the Sorcerer suffers for it's newly-exclusive metamagic not being enough to carry it.

And yes, I agree that many of the classes could be folded into others, such as the ranger and barbarian being types of fighters. I'm not saying they should do that, but they could have. I don't even think it would be that difficult.

That they don't illustrates the 'need' to add classes rather than just proliferate barely-different sub-classes.

But the thing about those classes is that they are also based on clear archetypes within fiction.

Unlike the Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Warlock, for instances. Also, on the flip side of that, the non-casting sub-classes are left to cover so many fictional archetypes that they could really be broken out into a number of full classes. If we were going by archetype, entirely. But the impetus for unique mechanics to define a class seems to seriously get in the way of that.

...

That said, I agree that internal resources are a large driver of it.

Oh, and on a more brand-management/philosophical side, presenting a more consistent brand image is a virtue that could be made of that necessity, as well.

I would posit that they made a conscious decision to devote their resources to the APs first, and then turn toward The Great Big Book o' Crunch (if any) later.

And I also agree that one book a year like SCAG would not impact things too much at all. There's like 20 pages of crunch in there. What I'd prefer not to see is an entire book of that size filled with crunch. I mean if it happens, it happens, and I'll likely even buy a copy, but my personal feeling is that the game doesn't need that as much as people seem to think, and that I'm not sure that a book like that is a smart move for WotC at this time.

I'd be sanguine about a big-book-o-crunch if it the other alternative were rolling a half-ed. Aside from that, I think little bits of crunch where they'd dovetail neatly with a campaign supplement as in SCAG is a good model.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I don't really want some big book full of crunch. In one of the surveys not long ago, homebrewing was biggest area that people play in. We need more material for people to create their own stories. I want books about the Feywild and the Shadowfell that have loads of lore and a few themed options that go along with those places.

 

[Corwin]

The facts in question have even been cited (or is that a different thread? I'm having trouble keeping up!)...

I haven't seen any. The claim he made basically boils down to:

TSR's glut of unprofitable splat was definitely *not* a result of bad management.

Not sure how that can be proven. I'd like to see him try.

For clarity, here's the actual original exchange, from well over over a dozen pages ago, that he took exception to:

Actually a lot of that was due to bad management and not necessarily the amount of products.

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