Maybe I'm missing something here, but why can't D&D be a game about fighting monsters, dungeon crawling and fantasy exploration......and a story driven role playing game? Why is it wrong for different groups to pick and choose which elements to have a greater presence of in their own games? Why is it wrong to like playing the game more mechanically vs more story driven? Why is it suddenly assumed that min-maxers can't or won't roleplay? Why is it assumed that role players will never care if the official mechanics support their character choices?
That's not what I've experienced at my table, the players love role play and using the mechanics to their fullest. We love role play, story lore, exploration, combat and everything in between. I've always seen D&D as a game where you can make it whatever you want, and I've seen many different ways to play this game. I guess I'm just surprised to see just how polarizing different play styles can be.
This. All of this. Just because a character is optimized, doesn't mean the players can't roleplay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why can't D&D be a game about fighting monsters, dungeon crawling and fantasy exploration......and a story driven role playing game? Why is it wrong for different groups to pick and choose which elements to have a greater presence of in their own games? Why is it wrong to like playing the game more mechanically vs more story driven? Why is it suddenly assumed that min-maxers can't or won't roleplay? Why is it assumed that role players will never care if the official mechanics support their character choices?
That's not what I've experienced at my table, the players love role play and using the mechanics to their fullest. We love role play, story lore, exploration, combat and everything in between. I've always seen D&D as a game where you can make it whatever you want, and I've seen many different ways to play this game. I guess I'm just surprised to see just how polarizing different play styles can be.
This. All of this. Just because a character is optimized, doesn't mean the players can't roleplay.
I don't think anyone was suggesting anything to the contrary. The question was and remains, why do we need more classes, the answer is because D&D is a game about fighting monsters and new classes give you new ways to do that, hence why people want more classes. There is no exclusion of anything in that concept, because the game IS a game about exploring dungeons and fighting monsters doesn't mean that ITS NOT about a story driven role-playing game.
I think the resistance to classes comes from the "this is a role-playing game, we don't need more classes for that" camp, which to me kind of reads like someone saying "hey you don't need dice to play D&D just use your imagination". I mean.. yes its a role-playing game and yes its about story but without dungeons and monsters to fights, D&D is nothing.
Can monsters be fought right now? Yes. The problem with the 'more ways to fight monsters' argument is that (and this has been mentioned somewhere earlier) invariably leads to power creep with respect to anything new added, to make it interesting to those who see this as just a combat game.
True and I mostly agree, we certainly have seen what can happen in 2e and 3e when expansion is unchecked, but its an inevitable rabbit hole, its not a question of if 5e will get more classes, its a question of when.
I always find it interesting to listen to people complain about Bloat. I get it to a certain extent, too much is bad. However, WotC MUST and WILL make new content because that is how they make money. New Subclasses are great, but that can only go so far before the power creep takes over. New classes allows for them to create a new subclasses to expand into new territory. That in turn helps to lessen power creep.
It could, but the situation for 3.5 and pathfinder was really different at the time and the community much different. While Pathfinder found its own magic, I have the impression that PF 2 is struggling, so there is no guarantee that it would work again.
And maybe they would still be happy with the very large community that supports them today and to continue developing it, rather than losing it to try and find a different equilibrium with the high risk that they might do it wrong.
The details may be different, but ultimately the situation boils down to the fact that a significant portion of the playerbase became dissatisfied and jumped ship, and WotC had to deal with a new competitor peeling away their consumers. That's a situation that can happen again for any large number of reasons.
This is all based on the presumption that things remain static. 5e has a very large community supporting it right now. That doesn't mean it will always stay that way. People can be satisfied with the way things are now and become dissatisfied for literally any number of reasons; hell, there's already a number of people flipping their shit over the new (and in my opinion, relatively mild) character options coming with Tasha's.
At some point, change is inevitable (which again, is what's happening right now with Tasha's), and either additions are made to the game, or a new edition has to be made.
True and I mostly agree, we certainly have seen what can happen in 2e and 3e when expansion is unchecked, but its an inevitable rabbit hole, its not a question of if 5e will get more classes, its a question of when.
And a Question of Which
I think this sums up what I've been trying to say pretty much perfectly.
I still want to hear from those 29 people who want to axe classes.
Which ones do people want removed?
For my gish wants I guess I just have to pray that Tasha's adds a selection of smite and strike spells to sorcerer. I can't see anyone objecting to that as it doesn't need a new class/subclass, and on its own doesn't overshadow paladin. It simply brings sorcerer a tiny bit closer to the playtest concept.
And again, you have absolutely zero proof that the player base is dissatisfied. A few people in these forums does not equate to the player base, by a far, far margin and even amongst the "involved" people here, the people clamouring for new classes are a minority.
Yes, people like me are, if not flipping about Tasha, mildly concerned about the power creep that I will have to manage again from a minority of the players in my group. I am certainly not looking forward to it, we do not need to, we have 3 campaigns at the same time going on strong and neither of these needs new character options. And we have been playing that strongly since 5e started...
Maybe, but it might be a long, long way off.
At no point did I ever say I had proof that the playerbase was dissatisfied, just as you have absolutely zero proof that it isn't; for either of us to say one way or the other is entirely conjecture on our parts. What I DID say, was that it's something that WotC absolutely does need to keep their finger on.
Regarding Tasha's...don't know what to tell you man. From my understanding of WotC's metrics, you are in the minority on that one.
For what it's worth, I hope 5e lasts long too. I've invested a *lot* in this edition.
I always find it interesting to listen to people complain about Bloat. I get it to a certain extent, too much is bad. However, WotC MUST and WILL make new content because that is how they make money. New Subclasses are great, but that can only go so far before the power creep takes over. New classes allows for them to create a new subclasses to expand into new territory. That in turn helps to lessen power creep.
So far, obviously, they don't need to, because the sale of the core rules and modules is going well enough with an expanding base. They have added one class in what, 4-5 years ? At this speed, I'm OK, honestly, let's add the next one in 2-3 years... :p
I would be willing to bet that books like Volo's, Xanathar's and Tash's bring in more sales than modules. Everyone in the three groups I currently play with own all the resource books where as I don't think all of us put together have a complete set of modules. The content of source books is where you also find all the power creep.
Additionally, we call TCoE Xanathar's 2.0 but content wise it is a PHB 2 as it provides all the tools to (almost) completely revise the character options from the PHB. This and the fact that we are beginning to see campaign guides shows that they are running out of room to create new options without expanding into new spaces that have been untouched in 5e.
And yet 5e is immensely popular, despite your statements. I agree that you feel passionately and have no problem believing that your feelings are sincere. However so are the feelings of those disagreeing with you, who also believe in the game and also care about its future.
5e is immensely popular, I never said it was, and adding more classes (not a ton, but a few) won't destroy the game or make it less popular.
Adding new and interesting classes, sure, however a large-ish batch, all at once is very questionable strategy. 7 would be a greater than 50% increase all at once. Plus, adding classes simply for the sake of adding classes is exceedingly questionable. Some of the suggestions have indeed seemed to have gotten more concrete over the course of the thread, however many seem still very amorphous. And as I was trying to say in the beginning, when you cannot articulate exactly what you think is missing and can only come up with a vague description, it comes across as adding classes for the sake of adding classes, of just making up a list not of what is really needed, but because you think someone should make up a list.
I wasn't going to ask for the all at once, a couple at a time. Artificer came out in a setting book, and I am not asking for them to be added for the sake of adding classes. We have said exactly what we feel is missing and how to add them.
Not singling you out there. That 'you' is plural.
I have not read the entire thread, but has it least been acknowledged that this is a business and anything added is a risk to WotC and that they thus need to be somewhat careful what and how they add it?
How is it a risk to add something that will make them more money? I never said that they should start adding classes willy-nilly. They should be careful, should playtest in UA, and should introduce the ideas to the community.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I don't think there are many people here just to stir the pot. Most of us sincerely believe in our side and want to convince others and be productive.
I believe you are, my only question is whether you think the same thing of people who disagree with you ?
I sincerely believe that it would be a mistake to complicate the game again with new classes, and I'm arguing in perfect good faith about this, with the benefit of years and years of wading through many editions. Does this mean that I am counterproductive ?
No, it doesn't. I know you and most of the other people against more classes are sincere. Asking that question sounds like an Ad Hominem.
Most of the people on my side also are sincere, as well. Just because you disagree with me, and I disagree with you doesn't make us counterproductive. Otherwise, every single argument in the history of humanity was counterproductive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
How is it a risk to add something that will make them more money?
That's a big assumption you are making there.
Even the poll in this thread says that you represent only about a third of the posters
The poll in this thread is of a very small percentage of the community. Millions of people play D&D 5e, and only about 500 people have answered both polls combined.
WotC made more money with the Artificer. A new class that is wanted by the community and that fills a niche will absolutely make them more money, if it's well designed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
How is it a risk to add something that will make them more money?
There's two risks. First, it might just sell worse than something else they could develop with the same amount of effort. Second, it risks reputational damage: they want the game to remain continually novice friendly, and a large number of options (particularly spread through multiple books) is not. Particularly if they indulge in the usual splatbook tendency of "get people to buy it by putting overpowered options in it".
How is it a risk to add something that will make them more money?
There's two risks. First, it might just sell worse than something else they could develop with the same amount of effort. Second, it risks reputational damage: they want the game to remain continually novice friendly, and a large number of options (particularly spread through multiple books) is not. Particularly if they indulge in the usual splatbook tendency of "get people to buy it by putting overpowered options in it".
1. That's always a risk when they develop anything, and is not a larger risk here than when they normally face when adding more content. WotC spent the last year and a half-ish creating Rime of the Frostmaiden, and who knows if it would've sold better if they designed a Planescape adventure? This is always a risk, and is no larger here than when they make anything else.
2. They didn't lose their reputation of being beginner-friendly when they created the Artificer.
3. That's not at all what WotC does. Do you seriously think that the way WotC sells books like Tasha's and Xanathar's is by putting OP options in it? You have no evidence for that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Keep in mind that I am not against any new classes at all, merely presenting caution. And you are sounding more reasonable at the moment than the general tone of 'pro-more' posters earlier in the discussion.
I think it should be done cautiously, too. We don't need dozens of more classes, we can fill some of the roles with subclasses, but there are niches that need filling by classes, and I think WotC should make those classes and publish them slowly.
As for 'something that will make them more money,' well that is the thing, isn't it? It is not a given that it would. It is not a given that any given new class idea would make them money. Publishing costs, so it would definitely cost them money. And it is very easy to insist that it would make them more money than the costs when you are not the one who would be paying the costs.
They paid money making the Artificer, and it's so popular that they're reprinting it so it can be more widely available. It's fair to assume that if they create a new class with the same amount of caution as the artificer, it will make money.
Again, that is not saying they should publish no new classes, merely that it is important to understand that aspect of doing so.
And I understand that, and agree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
We are well aware that there are costs to producing books. We are also aware that the player base is very, very large. I think it'd be fair to say that even if a majority of the consumer base didn't buy such materials, the possibility still exists for them to turn a healthy profit, assuming they didn't blow an exorbitant amount of money on development costs. On that note, I still think the focus on books is a bit archaic when the presence of digital media on venues such as DM's Guild also exist.
You are also sounding more reasonable at the moment than the general tone of "no-more" posters earlier in the discussion, thank you very much.
I think on the line between caution and bloat, 5e is way too far in the side of caution.
5e has been around as long as 4e, and only has a single new class in its entire lifetime. At this pace it would take 30 years for an additional 5 classes. And I doubt 5e will be around that long.
At this point I'm just hoping something appears to 5e which is what pathfinder was to 3e. All the smooth and streamlined core game rules of 5e, with actual in depth character creation like pathfinder 2e.
At this point I'm just hoping something appears to 5e which is what pathfinder was to 3e. All the smooth and streamlined core game rules of 5e, with actual in depth character creation like pathfinder 2e.
I don't think you can have "in depth character creation" when the game rules are all streamlined.
I feel that there are already enough character options to be able to create any reasonable character.
At this point I'm just hoping something appears to 5e which is what pathfinder was to 3e. All the smooth and streamlined core game rules of 5e, with actual in depth character creation like pathfinder 2e.
I don't think you can have "in depth character creation" when the game rules are all streamlined.
I feel that there are already enough character options to be able to create any reasonable character.
Except if you want to make an arcane elemental themed gish, without a hint of divine theme, which can spellstrike with a nice big variety of spells, you can't. And I resent EK, paladin, and ranger for luring the swordmage down a back-ally, before murdering and dismembering it in order to each take a limb home for personal consumption.
If you want to make a psion, you can't.
If you want to make a primal caster which can't wildshape, you can't.
There are endless characters which can't be made with the current system in a satisfying manner.
Also the idea that streamlined rules and character options are opposed isn't true. Adding another class doesn't require removing bounded accuracy, the disadvantage/advantage system, and adding volume to every item in your inventory.
As I've stated several times, simply adding smite/strike type spells to the sorcerer spell list before taking half levels of fighter would make a more satisfying gish to me than anything currently in game. But WotC keeps those spells under exclusive lock and key to only a tiny few classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This. All of this. Just because a character is optimized, doesn't mean the players can't roleplay.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
And a Question of Which
I always find it interesting to listen to people complain about Bloat. I get it to a certain extent, too much is bad. However, WotC MUST and WILL make new content because that is how they make money. New Subclasses are great, but that can only go so far before the power creep takes over. New classes allows for them to create a new subclasses to expand into new territory. That in turn helps to lessen power creep.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The details may be different, but ultimately the situation boils down to the fact that a significant portion of the playerbase became dissatisfied and jumped ship, and WotC had to deal with a new competitor peeling away their consumers. That's a situation that can happen again for any large number of reasons.
This is all based on the presumption that things remain static. 5e has a very large community supporting it right now. That doesn't mean it will always stay that way. People can be satisfied with the way things are now and become dissatisfied for literally any number of reasons; hell, there's already a number of people flipping their shit over the new (and in my opinion, relatively mild) character options coming with Tasha's.
At some point, change is inevitable (which again, is what's happening right now with Tasha's), and either additions are made to the game, or a new edition has to be made.
I think this sums up what I've been trying to say pretty much perfectly.
I still want to hear from those 29 people who want to axe classes.
Which ones do people want removed?
For my gish wants I guess I just have to pray that Tasha's adds a selection of smite and strike spells to sorcerer. I can't see anyone objecting to that as it doesn't need a new class/subclass, and on its own doesn't overshadow paladin. It simply brings sorcerer a tiny bit closer to the playtest concept.
At no point did I ever say I had proof that the playerbase was dissatisfied, just as you have absolutely zero proof that it isn't; for either of us to say one way or the other is entirely conjecture on our parts. What I DID say, was that it's something that WotC absolutely does need to keep their finger on.
Regarding Tasha's...don't know what to tell you man. From my understanding of WotC's metrics, you are in the minority on that one.
For what it's worth, I hope 5e lasts long too. I've invested a *lot* in this edition.
I would be willing to bet that books like Volo's, Xanathar's and Tash's bring in more sales than modules. Everyone in the three groups I currently play with own all the resource books where as I don't think all of us put together have a complete set of modules. The content of source books is where you also find all the power creep.
Additionally, we call TCoE Xanathar's 2.0 but content wise it is a PHB 2 as it provides all the tools to (almost) completely revise the character options from the PHB. This and the fact that we are beginning to see campaign guides shows that they are running out of room to create new options without expanding into new spaces that have been untouched in 5e.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
5e is immensely popular, I never said it was, and adding more classes (not a ton, but a few) won't destroy the game or make it less popular.
I wasn't going to ask for the all at once, a couple at a time. Artificer came out in a setting book, and I am not asking for them to be added for the sake of adding classes. We have said exactly what we feel is missing and how to add them.
How is it a risk to add something that will make them more money? I never said that they should start adding classes willy-nilly. They should be careful, should playtest in UA, and should introduce the ideas to the community.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That's a big assumption you are making there.
Even the poll in this thread says that you represent only about a third of the posters
No, it doesn't. I know you and most of the other people against more classes are sincere. Asking that question sounds like an Ad Hominem.
Most of the people on my side also are sincere, as well. Just because you disagree with me, and I disagree with you doesn't make us counterproductive. Otherwise, every single argument in the history of humanity was counterproductive.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The poll in this thread is of a very small percentage of the community. Millions of people play D&D 5e, and only about 500 people have answered both polls combined.
WotC made more money with the Artificer. A new class that is wanted by the community and that fills a niche will absolutely make them more money, if it's well designed.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
There's two risks. First, it might just sell worse than something else they could develop with the same amount of effort. Second, it risks reputational damage: they want the game to remain continually novice friendly, and a large number of options (particularly spread through multiple books) is not. Particularly if they indulge in the usual splatbook tendency of "get people to buy it by putting overpowered options in it".
Surely if people don't want to use all the additional options, they don't have to?
PHB or PHB+1 is perfectly reasonable.
1. That's always a risk when they develop anything, and is not a larger risk here than when they normally face when adding more content. WotC spent the last year and a half-ish creating Rime of the Frostmaiden, and who knows if it would've sold better if they designed a Planescape adventure? This is always a risk, and is no larger here than when they make anything else.
2. They didn't lose their reputation of being beginner-friendly when they created the Artificer.
3. That's not at all what WotC does. Do you seriously think that the way WotC sells books like Tasha's and Xanathar's is by putting OP options in it? You have no evidence for that.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think it should be done cautiously, too. We don't need dozens of more classes, we can fill some of the roles with subclasses, but there are niches that need filling by classes, and I think WotC should make those classes and publish them slowly.
They paid money making the Artificer, and it's so popular that they're reprinting it so it can be more widely available. It's fair to assume that if they create a new class with the same amount of caution as the artificer, it will make money.
And I understand that, and agree.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
We are well aware that there are costs to producing books. We are also aware that the player base is very, very large. I think it'd be fair to say that even if a majority of the consumer base didn't buy such materials, the possibility still exists for them to turn a healthy profit, assuming they didn't blow an exorbitant amount of money on development costs. On that note, I still think the focus on books is a bit archaic when the presence of digital media on venues such as DM's Guild also exist.
You are also sounding more reasonable at the moment than the general tone of "no-more" posters earlier in the discussion, thank you very much.
EDIT: Also, what Third_Sundering said.
I think on the line between caution and bloat, 5e is way too far in the side of caution.
5e has been around as long as 4e, and only has a single new class in its entire lifetime. At this pace it would take 30 years for an additional 5 classes. And I doubt 5e will be around that long.
At this point I'm just hoping something appears to 5e which is what pathfinder was to 3e. All the smooth and streamlined core game rules of 5e, with actual in depth character creation like pathfinder 2e.
I don't think you can have "in depth character creation" when the game rules are all streamlined.
I feel that there are already enough character options to be able to create any reasonable character.
Except if you want to make an arcane elemental themed gish, without a hint of divine theme, which can spellstrike with a nice big variety of spells, you can't. And I resent EK, paladin, and ranger for luring the swordmage down a back-ally, before murdering and dismembering it in order to each take a limb home for personal consumption.
If you want to make a psion, you can't.
If you want to make a primal caster which can't wildshape, you can't.
There are endless characters which can't be made with the current system in a satisfying manner.
Also the idea that streamlined rules and character options are opposed isn't true. Adding another class doesn't require removing bounded accuracy, the disadvantage/advantage system, and adding volume to every item in your inventory.
As I've stated several times, simply adding smite/strike type spells to the sorcerer spell list before taking half levels of fighter would make a more satisfying gish to me than anything currently in game. But WotC keeps those spells under exclusive lock and key to only a tiny few classes.