Adam addressed Tasha's on this weeks Dev Update. They're going to support it, get it in on time, but (reading between the lines here), their code people are sobbing into their triple-strength coffee over having to accomplish all the things they've been dragging their feet on which Wizards just promised would be in Tasha's. So while Adam is cautiously optimistic that they can deliver, he was quite careful not to make any actual promises of what would be ready. Only that they weren't doing 'Playtest' CFVs and that he was excited for the new book.
On the bright side, I think this forum post shows people want more classes
Well, the post did include a survey; and, despite the heated advocacy and some creative projects spun from it, over half the respondents weren't keen on adding classes to the game, a bit over 10/% actually want _less_ classes in game, and about a solid third wants more classes (vs. 2/3 for status quo or reduction, I was hoping for an "ambivalent" category myself). Assuming the participants are a similar cohort to a sample that would be used in actual market research, I don't know if that's a metric that would lead a publisher to add more, or push a licensed digital toolset to support it (though maybe Tasha's feature variant will allow someone to finesse it ... though has anyone noticed while Frostmaiden is on the Developers list, Tasha's isn't?).
Well regarding the poll it doesnt really reflect why people answered a certain way. For me, I answered "no" to more classes, but that was because I personally don't feel like I'm missing something, not because I'm opposed to more classes. I don't really like the artificer but I'm not mad they introduced it.
On the bright side, I think this forum post shows people want more classes
Well, the post did include a survey; and, despite the heated advocacy and some creative projects spun from it, over half the respondents weren't keen on adding classes to the game, a bit over 10/% actually want _less_ classes in game, and about a solid third wants more classes (vs. 2/3 for status quo or reduction, I was hoping for an "ambivalent" category myself). Assuming the participants are a similar cohort to a sample that would be used in actual market research, I don't know if that's a metric that would lead a publisher to add more, or push a licensed digital toolset to support it (though maybe Tasha's feature variant will allow someone to finesse it ... though has anyone noticed while Frostmaiden is on the Developers list, Tasha's isn't?).
Well regarding the poll it doesnt really reflect why people answered a certain way. For me, I answered "no" to more classes, but that was because I personally don't feel like I'm missing something, not because I'm opposed to more classes. I don't really like the artificer but I'm not mad they introduced it.
I am referring to the fact of people that are not neutral in which case that is 30% vs 10%
It's interesting that some people seemed to think that we didn't need more classes, but classes as a whole needed redoing to allow more creative freedom.
Which tbh I could agree with. You could very easily have less classes/subclasses than we do currently, while having a much greater variety of playstyles.
On the bright side, I think this forum post shows people want more classes
Well, the post did include a survey; and, despite the heated advocacy and some creative projects spun from it, over half the respondents weren't keen on adding classes to the game, a bit over 10/% actually want _less_ classes in game, and about a solid third wants more classes (vs. 2/3 for status quo or reduction, I was hoping for an "ambivalent" category myself). Assuming the participants are a similar cohort to a sample that would be used in actual market research, I don't know if that's a metric that would lead a publisher to add more, or push a licensed digital toolset to support it (though maybe Tasha's feature variant will allow someone to finesse it ... though has anyone noticed while Frostmaiden is on the Developers list, Tasha's isn't?).
Well regarding the poll it doesnt really reflect why people answered a certain way. For me, I answered "no" to more classes, but that was because I personally don't feel like I'm missing something, not because I'm opposed to more classes. I don't really like the artificer but I'm not mad they introduced it.
I am referring to the fact of people that are not neutral in which case that is 30% vs 10%
I'm not sure what you're saying there. A third of respondents favor new classes, over half said no, and 10 percent actually feel there's room for a reduction of class. As I and another indicated those in the "no" camp may be more ambivalent or "open" to it, and it's just as likely people in the "yes" camp are equally ambivalent that, sure new classes might be nice (new stuff! kewl) but there isn't an urgent system broken need for it (which was a perspective in the discussion that tended to dominate things when the discussion became polarized, though the opposition to hardline demand for more classes was actually a pretty diverse set of perspectives as opposed to a polarity).
To those talking about the poll, this is just a small sample size of the D&D community. Also, the poll should really have a 4th options "No opinion/Neutral". There are 2 options against adding new classes and only 1 option in support of adding new classes. I'm sure if you were to go to a different D&D website and make a similar poll, the numbers would be much different.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
To those talking about the poll, this is just a small sample size of the D&D community. Also, the poll should really have a 4th options "No opinion/Neutral". There are 2 options against adding new classes and only 1 option in support of adding new classes. I'm sure if you were to go to a different D&D website and make a similar poll, the numbers would be much different.
This feels phrased in an unnecessarily defensive tone. Well the broad categories were "more" "same" "less". So for the folks who didn't want to see any change can also say there were two options that went against their preference. The critique works all ways, and I don't see how the phrasing particularly disadvantaged one position in the poll or discussion debate.
Yes, a more sophisticated poll would offer more grains to pick at: "Yes, I think one or two class would improve the game." "Yes, this game needs at least five more classes." "I like what I have but I'd probably look at new classes if they were offered." "ABSOLUTELY NOT" "Actually I think the number of classes should be reduced."
200+ responses is "decent", far more respondents than discussants. I imagine if you went to an analogous forum, say something like Roll20, you'd probably find results analogous. If you went to a place that was more a strict home-brew hub, or a place that supported many many games, you're inviting a crowd that's likely critical of D&D and that begs for critiques already represented in this discussion. I guess in that, Roll20 might be one of those spaces given the range of games it supports. So those surveys would beg the question whether the respondents are even players or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The trick really is, creating a system that supports all of the options, which I believe is not only possible, but was accomplished back in 1986. All that was really needed was for dedicated books for the variants of D&D you want to play.
The thing for me though and I think I mentioned this already, I only recently became aware that people actually only play X edition exclusively. I suppose its just me showing my age but as far back as I can remember every DM would take whichever edition was closest to his preference and then add/remove and change things in that edition, usually cannibalizing other editions for rules, classes etc. This was always the way I have done it myself, I mean when I tell my group "I have a new D&D campaign ready", no one asks "what edition are we playing"... Like that really isn't a thing, we are playing D&D and every game has special rules, systems, races, classes etc. Its never the same twice and always catered to the setting or style of the campaign. I don't think I have ever just run an edition of the game RAW, not even close.
I think many people still play that way. I got a feeling, and plenty of anecdotal evidence that most people go about D&D with a broader fudge factor or make it up on the fly approach to in game resolutions than most people invested in this, and most mechanic, discussions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The trick really is, creating a system that supports all of the options, which I believe is not only possible, but was accomplished back in 1986. All that was really needed was for dedicated books for the variants of D&D you want to play.
The thing for me though and I think I mentioned this already, I only recently became aware that people actually only play X edition exclusively. I suppose its just me showing my age but as far back as I can remember every DM would take whichever edition was closest to his preference and then add/remove and change things in that edition, usually cannibalizing other editions for rules, classes etc. This was always the way I have done it myself, I mean when I tell my group "I have a new D&D campaign ready", no one asks "what edition are we playing"... Like that really isn't a thing, we are playing D&D and every game has special rules, systems, races, classes etc. Its never the same twice and always catered to the setting or style of the campaign. I don't think I have ever just run an edition of the game RAW, not even close.
Nobody asks me “What Edition?” either because it is assumed to be 5e. Sure, I update and import stuff from older editions, even my reworked version of the Mystara campaign setting has been updated from D&D to AD&D to 2e to 3/3.5 and current now to 5e. (That setting hasn’t been supported since the TSR days.) But I wouldn’t even imagine asking my players to go back to AD&D2e, or even 3/3.5 for that matter.
Heh. Ye know the irony to the whole "D&D should be a super simple basic system, and you just buy the specific setting/content supplement for the game you want to play" plan?
That's how point builder games like GURPS have been doing it for years and years.
'Course, point builder games are The Devil here in DDB and anyone who plays them a consort of the Great Shaitan...but that's how all the point builders I've been exposed to work. The base book covers the basics of a modern-ish setting and some broad-strokes options for fantasy, sci-fi, and other staple genres, and the game builders encourage players to seek out more specific, in-depth setting supplements for what they want to do.
I believe BigLizard is speaking of the "old school renaissance" or retroclones out there which is more in line with the 80s red box etc. in some forms though there's also a wing strongly supportive of AD&D. If I'm reading right, his experience has been players regardless of the supported edition in print, players would chuck out a lot or mix it up so that it's more reflective of that experience. And again, I think this is more akin to what the bulk of play is like, especially among school aged players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Honestly, there's only two new classes that need to be looked into - an official Blood Hunter and the Mystic, which really could work if it were styled more after the Warlock (Psionic Disciplines in place of spells and Psionic Talents in place of Eldritch Invocations). Otherwise, I'm quite happy for 5e to just add on more subclasses forever (long live 5e)! Oh, and maybe change base races (or as I prefer, species) and backgrounds - have a Physical Stat Bonus (eg. +1 Dex, Con, Str) in the species ability score increase, and have a Mental Stat Bonus (eg. +1 Int, Cha, Wis) in the character background. Finally, with the stray +1, maybe they can simply allow the characters to pick where it goes.
Sorry, I went off topic! Anyway, 5e Classes are fine. All the classes are perfect. We don't need many more, in my not-very-humble opinion. Good day!
I get that, Midnight. Merely pointing out the similarity of that highly modular, plug-in-your-own-rules approach to the method used by point builder games, despite the fact that many players of 5e consider point builder games to be the Sheerest Definition of Unspeakable Evil.
It's also worth noting that for many players who started playing from the Critical Role boom, access to Red Box, OD&D, AD&D, and the like is fiercely limited. Most of us don't have forty year old books laying around; the best most of us can do is scooping up outdated 3.5 books from the occasional lucky Goodwill find, or digging up bootleg PDFs of questionable-at-best quality.
Honestly, there's only two new classes that need to be looked into - an official Blood Hunter and the Mystic, which really could work if it were styled more after the Warlock (Psionic Disciplines in place of spells and Psionic Talents in place of Eldritch Invocations). Otherwise, I'm quite happy for 5e to just add on more subclasses forever (long live 5e)! Oh, and maybe change base races (or as I prefer, species) and backgrounds - have a Physical Stat Bonus (eg. +1 Dex, Con, Str) in the species ability score increase, and have a Mental Stat Bonus (eg. +1 Int, Cha, Wis) in the character background. Finally, with the stray +1, maybe they can simply allow the characters to pick where it goes.
Sorry, I went off topic! Anyway, 5e Classes are fine. All the classes are perfect. We don't need many more, in my not-very-humble opinion. Good day!
I'd be for a Mystic _only_ if there was a Wonderboy/Nastyman subclass, might be dating myself:
What powers you ask? I dunno how 'bout the power of flight? That do anything for ya? That's levitation, holmes. How 'bout the power to kill a yak from 200 yards away... with mind bullets! That's telekinesis, Kyle. How 'bout the power to move you?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Honestly, there's only two new classes that need to be looked into - an official Blood Hunter and the Mystic, which really could work if it were styled more after the Warlock (Psionic Disciplines in place of spells and Psionic Talents in place of Eldritch Invocations). Otherwise, I'm quite happy for 5e to just add on more subclasses forever (long live 5e)! Oh, and maybe change base races (or as I prefer, species) and backgrounds - have a Physical Stat Bonus (eg. +1 Dex, Con, Str) in the species ability score increase, and have a Mental Stat Bonus (eg. +1 Int, Cha, Wis) in the character background. Finally, with the stray +1, maybe they can simply allow the characters to pick where it goes.
Sorry, I went off topic! Anyway, 5e Classes are fine. All the classes are perfect. We don't need many more, in my not-very-humble opinion. Good day!
All the classes are perfect? Rangers and Sorcerers seem to disagree with you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Adam addressed Tasha's on this weeks Dev Update. They're going to support it, get it in on time, but (reading between the lines here), their code people are sobbing into their triple-strength coffee over having to accomplish all the things they've been dragging their feet on which Wizards just promised would be in Tasha's. So while Adam is cautiously optimistic that they can deliver, he was quite careful not to make any actual promises of what would be ready. Only that they weren't doing 'Playtest' CFVs and that he was excited for the new book.
Please do not contact or message me.
I feel so sorry for their coders right now.
Well regarding the poll it doesnt really reflect why people answered a certain way. For me, I answered "no" to more classes, but that was because I personally don't feel like I'm missing something, not because I'm opposed to more classes. I don't really like the artificer but I'm not mad they introduced it.
I am referring to the fact of people that are not neutral in which case that is 30% vs 10%
It's interesting that some people seemed to think that we didn't need more classes, but classes as a whole needed redoing to allow more creative freedom.
Which tbh I could agree with. You could very easily have less classes/subclasses than we do currently, while having a much greater variety of playstyles.
I'm not sure what you're saying there. A third of respondents favor new classes, over half said no, and 10 percent actually feel there's room for a reduction of class. As I and another indicated those in the "no" camp may be more ambivalent or "open" to it, and it's just as likely people in the "yes" camp are equally ambivalent that, sure new classes might be nice (new stuff! kewl) but there isn't an urgent system broken need for it (which was a perspective in the discussion that tended to dominate things when the discussion became polarized, though the opposition to hardline demand for more classes was actually a pretty diverse set of perspectives as opposed to a polarity).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To those talking about the poll, this is just a small sample size of the D&D community. Also, the poll should really have a 4th options "No opinion/Neutral". There are 2 options against adding new classes and only 1 option in support of adding new classes. I'm sure if you were to go to a different D&D website and make a similar poll, the numbers would be much different.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Heck, if it had different degrees for how strongly people felt for each option, I imagine that could make quite a bit of difference as well.
Yeah I'd have probably worded the poll differently if I'd know there was such a variety of opinions.
This feels phrased in an unnecessarily defensive tone. Well the broad categories were "more" "same" "less". So for the folks who didn't want to see any change can also say there were two options that went against their preference. The critique works all ways, and I don't see how the phrasing particularly disadvantaged one position in the poll or discussion debate.
Yes, a more sophisticated poll would offer more grains to pick at: "Yes, I think one or two class would improve the game." "Yes, this game needs at least five more classes." "I like what I have but I'd probably look at new classes if they were offered." "ABSOLUTELY NOT" "Actually I think the number of classes should be reduced."
200+ responses is "decent", far more respondents than discussants. I imagine if you went to an analogous forum, say something like Roll20, you'd probably find results analogous. If you went to a place that was more a strict home-brew hub, or a place that supported many many games, you're inviting a crowd that's likely critical of D&D and that begs for critiques already represented in this discussion. I guess in that, Roll20 might be one of those spaces given the range of games it supports. So those surveys would beg the question whether the respondents are even players or not.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think many people still play that way. I got a feeling, and plenty of anecdotal evidence that most people go about D&D with a broader fudge factor or make it up on the fly approach to in game resolutions than most people invested in this, and most mechanic, discussions.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Nobody asks me “What Edition?” either because it is assumed to be 5e. Sure, I update and import stuff from older editions, even my reworked version of the Mystara campaign setting has been updated from D&D to AD&D to 2e to 3/3.5 and current now to 5e. (That setting hasn’t been supported since the TSR days.) But I wouldn’t even imagine asking my players to go back to AD&D2e, or even 3/3.5 for that matter.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Heh. Ye know the irony to the whole "D&D should be a super simple basic system, and you just buy the specific setting/content supplement for the game you want to play" plan?
That's how point builder games like GURPS have been doing it for years and years.
'Course, point builder games are The Devil here in DDB and anyone who plays them a consort of the Great Shaitan...but that's how all the point builders I've been exposed to work. The base book covers the basics of a modern-ish setting and some broad-strokes options for fantasy, sci-fi, and other staple genres, and the game builders encourage players to seek out more specific, in-depth setting supplements for what they want to do.
Curious...quite curious...
Please do not contact or message me.
I believe BigLizard is speaking of the "old school renaissance" or retroclones out there which is more in line with the 80s red box etc. in some forms though there's also a wing strongly supportive of AD&D. If I'm reading right, his experience has been players regardless of the supported edition in print, players would chuck out a lot or mix it up so that it's more reflective of that experience. And again, I think this is more akin to what the bulk of play is like, especially among school aged players.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Honestly, there's only two new classes that need to be looked into - an official Blood Hunter and the Mystic, which really could work if it were styled more after the Warlock (Psionic Disciplines in place of spells and Psionic Talents in place of Eldritch Invocations). Otherwise, I'm quite happy for 5e to just add on more subclasses forever (long live 5e)! Oh, and maybe change base races (or as I prefer, species) and backgrounds - have a Physical Stat Bonus (eg. +1 Dex, Con, Str) in the species ability score increase, and have a Mental Stat Bonus (eg. +1 Int, Cha, Wis) in the character background. Finally, with the stray +1, maybe they can simply allow the characters to pick where it goes.
Sorry, I went off topic! Anyway, 5e Classes are fine. All the classes are perfect. We don't need many more, in my not-very-humble opinion. Good day!
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
I get that, Midnight. Merely pointing out the similarity of that highly modular, plug-in-your-own-rules approach to the method used by point builder games, despite the fact that many players of 5e consider point builder games to be the Sheerest Definition of Unspeakable Evil.
It's also worth noting that for many players who started playing from the Critical Role boom, access to Red Box, OD&D, AD&D, and the like is fiercely limited. Most of us don't have forty year old books laying around; the best most of us can do is scooping up outdated 3.5 books from the occasional lucky Goodwill find, or digging up bootleg PDFs of questionable-at-best quality.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'd be for a Mystic _only_ if there was a Wonderboy/Nastyman subclass, might be dating myself:
What powers you ask? I dunno how 'bout the power of flight?
That do anything for ya? That's levitation, holmes.
How 'bout the power to kill a yak from 200 yards away...
with mind bullets! That's telekinesis, Kyle.
How 'bout the power to move you?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Aren't those Fighters?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
All the classes are perfect? Rangers and Sorcerers seem to disagree with you.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
All the current classes are perfect?
*wheeze*