D&D 5E What 5E needs is a hundred classes

[Sunseeker]

of course. i kinda assumed that.

i believe: fighter (soldier/elite soldier/paragon soldier/epic soldier) to get a well specialized fighter should be possible, as should be fighter (soldier/archer/guardian/knight) which will be less specialized more well rounded fighter.

Maybe names of classes and themes should be different... so while rogue/rogue/rogue should be possible, i´d rather have: rogue(thief/ elite thief/ paragon thief/ epic thief) or rogue (scoundrel/thief/acrobat/elite scoundrel)

Sure, I don't mind if they fluff it up, but I would like to be able to take a "standard" route. I don't much care for multiclassing, and returning to 3e multiclassing with more tiers for themes is just going to be really obnoxious if there's no "paragon fighter, epic fighter, super-fighter" themes that just build upon what I've already got.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sure, I don't mind if they fluff it up, but I would like to be able to take a "standard" route. I don't much care for multiclassing, and returning to 3e multiclassing with more tiers for themes is just going to be really obnoxious if there's no "paragon fighter, epic fighter, super-fighter" themes that just build upon what I've already got.

Yeah. Having to chose something when you just want to stick eith what you got seems bad.
This is why I liked the essentials way in 4e. Although standard paragon paths were only mediocre usually, it was an option that was intuitive.

If I were wizards. I would stick to the essentials class design. Fighter(slayer/epic slayer) would be a great thing. Themes would take care of the powers/features the fighter gets, and maybe some weapon or armor choices.

The only thing worrying me right now is what does the class give by itself? Maybe hitpoints of a fighter, extra attacks, maybe a damage bonus per level?

 

[Sanglorian]

None of these things have anything to do with the setting. The game has to pick some point at which to limit your progression. Sure you could do "every level", but then why even have themes, backgrounds, classes or "mini classes"? Why not just have a list of features and feats and skills you can pick up at any level. Bigger question: why are you only allowed to pick one? Why can't at 6th level, I take EVERY feature?

Personally, I think of D&D as a classed game, and to me, classes are more than single level with a single feature. That's basically a classless game, and while I'm up for more fluidity, I'm not interested in an open ocean.

Think of classes like a college degree. You can double major, but you can't pick a new major until you've completed one of the ones you're on, which takes about 2 years. Prospectively in 5e, that's how classes will work, it takes you 5 levels worth of "time" to master a class, and until you master the things you're already working on, you can't go on to master something else. And that is generally the goal of most classes, to become a master of it, not just dabble in a little of everything.

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes. I don't mind themes lasting five levels, if that's how many levels-worth of content they have for them. I have no problem with someone following one theme for five levels, then finding another for five, and so on, if that makes sense within the story.

What does not make sense to me is having people locked into a theme for five levels, and to have themes arbitrarily siloed by level and not by - for example - finding a secret organisation or reaching a certain level of magical aptitude. If I stop my major one year in and start studying something else, I don't keep learning the contents of my original major. And if it makes sense for there to be apprentice necromancers, then the Necromancer theme should be available at 1st level - the game-design concern that that might leave too few meaningful choices five levels down the track shouldn't overrule the logic of the game world.

 

[Bobbum Man]

the game-design concern that that might leave too few meaningful choices five levels down the track shouldn't overrule the logic of the game world.

Yes it should.

At the end of the day, D&D is about playing a game first and foremost. It is not about writing a novel.

 

[Mark CMG]

Now, before everyone screams WTF?, remember that both 3E and 4E had close to 50 classes towards the end of their edition run. Having an RPG with a hundred classes isn't unrealistic at all.

This new form of restrictive quasi-flexibility might just be a breakthrough for baffled gamacological scientists everywhere. And I'm guessing there's money in it!


Let's get off the "class" train at some point with D&D already. I have yet to meet a player who didn't want something in a class that wasn't already included. The idea that somehow more classes is a good thing fairly well clinches it. We're like a kid who is still hanging onto the edge of the coffee table before taking some unassisted steps.

 

[Sanglorian]

Yes it should.

At the end of the day, D&D is about playing a game first and foremost. It is not about writing a novel.

It is not just any game, though. One thing that distinguishes roleplaying games from most other types of game is that in roleplaying games the fiction influences the mechanical decisions of the players. Having a jarring disconnect between the fiction and the mechanics undermines one of the distinctive features of an RPG.

 

[Bobbum Man]

It is not just any game, though. One thing that distinguishes roleplaying games from most other types of game is that in roleplaying games the fiction influences the mechanical decisions of the players. Having a jarring disconnect between the fiction and the mechanics undermines one of the distinctive features of an RPG.

Actually...it IS "just any game". And like any game, the ultiimate goal should be entertainment and camaraderie. Anything else the game might provide is strictly a bonus.

First and foremost, the game has to be as playable as it can reasonably be. If the designers begin to sacrifice playability for ideology, then they are failing at their jobs.

The majority of people sitting down around tables every week don't care "mechanics informing game fiction"...that's just rhetoric that people throw out to give their opinion the illusion of depth during internet arguments. The truth of the matter is that it's up to individual preference. In these cases, the preferences that should be catered to are the ones that make for the most intuitive and playable game. All other aspects should be of secondary, or tertiary concern.

 

[Sanglorian]

Actually...it IS "just any game". And like any game, the ultiimate goal should be entertainment and camaraderie. Anything else the game might provide is strictly a bonus.

First and foremost, the game has to be as playable as it can reasonably be. If the designers begin to sacrifice playability for ideology, then they are failing at their jobs.

The majority of people sitting down around tables every week don't care "mechanics informing game fiction"...that's just rhetoric that people throw out to give their opinion the illusion of depth during internet arguments. The truth of the matter is that it's up to individual preference. In these cases, the preferences that should be catered to are the ones that make for the most intuitive and playable game. All other aspects should be of secondary, or tertiary concern.

I think one of the reasons people have reacted against 4E is that they felt that the mechanics were abstracted from the fiction, that what their powers could do mechanically was removed from what should happen in the fiction. They weren't being entertained as much as they might be. They may not have described it as 'mechanics informing game fiction', but that's what they were looking for.

I don't want mechanics to be connected to the fiction for ideological reasons, but because I think that, unlike all other games, roleplaying games need that connection to be intuitive and playable. If your character's in-game induction into the Red Wizards of Thay depends on an out-of-game criterion like being level 1 or level 6, but not other levels, then that results in a less intuitive and less playable game.

 

[Mercutio01]

Actually...it IS "just any game". And like any game, the ultiimate goal should be entertainment and camaraderie. Anything else the game might provide is strictly a bonus.

First and foremost, the game has to be as playable as it can reasonably be. If the designers begin to sacrifice playability for ideology, then they are failing at their jobs.

The majority of people sitting down around tables every week don't care "mechanics informing game fiction"...that's just rhetoric that people throw out to give their opinion the illusion of depth during internet arguments. The truth of the matter is that it's up to individual preference. In these cases, the preferences that should be catered to are the ones that make for the most intuitive and playable game. All other aspects should be of secondary, or tertiary concern.

If that is the case, why play D&D at all? If the sole purpose of the game is the game side of the spectrum, why not just pick up Cataan or Chess, for crying out loud?

Belittling other people's opinions in a condescending know-it-all manner and pretending to superiority because of some cut--the-crap philosophy does not make your arguments any more reasonable. What separates D&D from Chess is more than just playability. And at some level you have to know that an RPG needs more than just playability.

Your argument essentially boils down to something akin to "Just the game rules and leave all that fiction crap out." Frankly, that is exactly the opposite approach I personally want to see. Fiction first, then make the mechanics follow that fiction.



Edited to add - Fireball shouldn't be "Ranged Burst 5 within 20, 5d6 damage, save for half." Fireball should be "You create a bead of force that speeds from the point of your finger. When that bead reaches its destination, it explodes in a sphere of fire, injuring and setting fire to anything within its radius. ---- Ranged Burst 5 within 20, 5d6 damage, Reflex save for half. Unattended items catch fire. Creatures that save also avoid catching fire as well as keeping their items safe. Creatures that do not save can spend a move action to put out the fire."

Fiction first (what actually happens from the characters; point of view) -- then create the mechanics (how it works on a meta-text level). The same type of thing can be done for themes or classes, and from reading the preview stuff, I think this is exactly what the designers are doing.

Note: The above Fireball is just for example. I'm not suggesting this be the wording or the rule text (in fact, since I spent approximately 2 minutes typing this all up, I hope the actual rule looks nothing like this).

 

[Bobbum Man]

I think one of the reasons people have reacted against 4E is that they felt that the mechanics were abstracted from the fiction, that what their powers could do mechanically was removed from what should happen in the fiction. They weren't being entertained as much as they might be. They may not have described it as 'mechanics informing game fiction', but that's what they were looking for.

I don't want mechanics to be connected to the fiction for ideological reasons, but because I think that, unlike all other games, roleplaying games need that connection to be intuitive and playable. If your character's in-game induction into the Red Wizards of Thay depends on an out-of-game criterion like being level 1 or level 6, but not other levels, then that results in a less intuitive and less playable game.

No...people reacted to 4E because they take this stuff too seriously, and WAY too personally.

The only people who actually care whether Red Wizard of Thay is a prestige class, paragon path, or nebulous roleplaying reward are the people posting on gaming forums, who are a small, vocal minority of the hobby as a whole. The majority of players only care that the Red Wizard of Thay exists in SOME capacity. I don't know why you feel it makes more sense to become an Arcane Archer at level 2 than it does at level 6.