D&D 5E What Subclasses and races are still missing?

[gyor]

Mage Armor would require expending a spell slot and has a finite duration. Also, I suggested the Wisdom bonus to AC as a solution for the armor-less Cleric/Priest as someone pointed out that subclasses don't generally remove base class abilities.

Fair enough, i would be fine with that.

 

[hejtmane]

I mean haven't been even covered by an UA even.

Yuan Ti Sorceror Origin.
Trapper Rogue
Urban Druid
Oath of Liberation Paladin
Slaadi Pact Warlock
Beauty Domain Cleric
Shia'ar Wizard
Military Surgeon Fighter
Mists Ranger
Tattooed Barbarian
Sacred Fist Monk
College of Theology Bard

What there are more
I mean when I first started it was
Fighter, Cleric,Mage, Thief Then they added a few druid and I think mystic kind of fuzzy in the memory

Then 1e had more
Cleric, Druid
Monk
Thief
Fighter>Paldian>Ranger
Magic user>illusionist
Bard

The the Unearth Arcana expansion later like Barbarian, Cavlier etc and if you want to count ortiental adventure there were some more

5E for me had a lot more options then I was ever use to and then there are more; Holy cow batman I think between the classes coming and multiclassing I can create almost anything I want

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think it's an obsession, I prefer to look at it as a "lessons learned" from the previous 3 editions.

Indeed, while mechanical 'bloat' may not be the worst thing (all that stuff out there in UA and DMsG isn't killing the game), claiming too much shelf-space, contrary to common marketing wisdom, may well be off-putting to the D&D target customers. Maybe it's simplistic correlation, but D&D has had it's worst troubles when it had it's most hectic schedules of publication - though PF stands as a stark counter-example, it's dynamics are different, having a very strong mutual relationship between the publisher & fanbase.

But what exactly would you say keeping bloat down is counterproductive to?

It's counter to inclusiveness. The solution to allow both is to keep options broad & re-skinnable and, critically, balanced, and the game flexible and DM-Empowering. 5e has opted more for broad options & DM-Empowerment than re-skinning & balance, and failed in some specific cases, particularly knuckling under to edition-war prejudices, but, on balance, has done a great job of keeping 5e acceptable to long-time/continuing fans and welcoming to returning players from 3.5/PF (albeit, needing some options turned on) as well as those who haven't played since the heyday of the classic game.

 

[Imaro]

It's counter to inclusiveness.

Going to disagree with this statement. I think a game that is kept more accessible is inclusive to more people.

EDIT: Whether that means you specifically are excluded doesn't speak to the overall inclusiveness of the game...

EDIT 2: Uh yeah... you can miss me with all of the edition war baiting... not interested in going down that path for the nth time with you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think a game that is kept more accessible is inclusive to more people.

Accessibility is a quality that applies mainly to new players (for established players a similar feeling comes from familiarity). A game could make itself much more accessible, but alienate established players in the process. Net, that could be 'inclusive to more people' if there are far fewer people playing the game than not, but exclusionary to some people formerly included.

Indeed, D&D did exactly that in 2008. It then went on to make itself /less/ accessible by jamming the shelves with supplements labeled 'Core,' then 'simplified' that mess by jamming the shelves with redundant products labeled 'Essential.'

:|

Whether that means you specifically are excluded doesn't speak to the overall inclusiveness of the game...

I'm not excluded from 5e, I quite enjoy running it.

 

[Imaro]

Accessibility is a quality that applies mainly to new players (for established players a similar feeling comes from familiarity).

Yes, it's great when you are able to combine the two in a game like 5e (accessibility for new players and familiarity for old players)... I think it's safe to assume the game is pulling in both new and returning/retaining old since there's no indication that sales have dropped off as with previous editions around this time in their lifecycle... unless you're implying that these sales have been maintained soleley or even mostly by only returning/previous players? I think that would be a pretty absurd claim to make.

A game could make itself much more accessible, but alienate established players in the process. Net, that could be 'inclusive to more people' if there are far fewer people playing the game than not, but exclusionary to some people formerly included.

Indeed, D&D did exactly that in 2008. It then went on to make itself /less/ accessible by jamming the shelves with supplements labeled 'Core,' then 'simplified' that mess by jamming the shelves with redundant products labeled 'Essential.'

:|

I choose not to speak to what happened with 4e (for someone who doesn't want to edition war you sure do find ways to bring 4e up in nearly any conversation about 5e). But as i said earlier I believe 5e is a game that shows all signs of having nailed both accessibility and familiarity in one package.

I'm not excluded from 5e, I quite enjoy running it.

General you...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, it's great when you are able to combine the two in a game like 5e (accessibility for new players and familiarity for old players)...

It does seem to have hit a good compromise between the two this time around. The comparative lack of visible 'bloat' avoids scaring off potential new players, and is familiar to returning players from 1e, while the content is familiar enough for returning players from both d20 and the classic game. The accessibility of the content is another issue, but it's certainly better compared to 3e or, especially, AD&D (1e was outright designed to be hard to understand & master, the philosophy being that the DM /needed/ to know the rules better than his players).

I think it's safe to assume the game is pulling in both new and returning/retaining old

The recent age-range statistics also seem to back that up. It's not just a lot of elderly grognards who started at the height of the fad. They're the #3 cohort of 5e players. It's a great thing.

I choose not to speak to what happened with 4e

Good, you have a poor record on that score, in any case.
But, I did play & DM 4e for it's full run, and introduced a lot of people to the game in that edition, and in the previous ones back to 1e. And, IMX, the game was never as accessible as it was at the start of the Encounters program. The retention and the ease with which new players transitioned to DMing was remarkable. What was lacking was retention of returning & long-time players, and, of course, the wealth of new players to retain in the first place, as there wasn't a boardgaming renaissance drawing hordes of people into the general orbit of hobby games at the time, as there is now.

General you...

In that case, you (the specific you) were simply wrong in your statement. If the reader, in general, were feeling excluded, inclusivity would be poor, indeed.

 

[Imaro]

In that case, you (the specific you) were simply wrong in your statement. If the reader, in general, were feeling excluded, inclusivity would be poor, indeed.

Nope... a single exclusion does not speak to inclusiveness as a whole... it's a pretty simple concept.

 

[Imaro]

Good, you have a poor record on that score, in any case.

Some would say the same thing about your inability to not bring 4e up in a 5e discussion and then claim edition warring when others don't agree with you... but then you know what they say about opinions...

But, I did play & DM 4e for it's full run, and introduced a lot of people to the game in that edition, and in the previous ones back to 1e. And, IMX, the game was never as accessible as it was at the start of the Encounters program. The retention and the ease with which new players transitioned to DMing was remarkable. What was lacking was retention of returning & long-time players, and, of course, the wealth of new players to retain in the first place, as there wasn't a boardgaming renaissance drawing hordes of people into the general orbit of hobby games at the time, as there is now.

I'm sorry... that wasn't really me asking for your anecdotes around and expected praise of all things 4e either. I've honestly heard it all before and in this very forum.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nope... a single exclusion does not speak to inclusiveness as a whole... it's a pretty simple concept.

Inclusiveness is not about including the majority, that's easy. Inclusiveness is about the ability to accept others who aren't comfortably just like you.

I'm sorry if that's not quite as simple a concept.