The game decreases in quality as more classes are added because the number of possible rule combinations increases and it becomes impossible to check them all. That will happen long before another 7 classes are added.
The game depends on being simple so that it can bring in new players. Having 20 classes is going to look overwhelming to a newbie. You might want to look at the principle of over choice.
That's BS. If the game had one class, that would not be better than the 13 it currently has. More options =/= Destruction of D&D. Also, you don't need to introduce new characters to all 20 classes when they start. In fact, you might want to consider having them start with the Sidekick classes if you're so vehemently opposed to more options for new players.
The game can be simple with 20 options for class. There are over 80 races in the game, and I don't see new players not joining the game because of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
What I stated was that in 5e, virtually all buffs are concentration based, meaning only one up at a time. Now if you want to explain how that is not a barrier to the concept of a self buffing arcane / martial hybrid class designed 50/50 arcane/martial in harmony (rather than multiclassing), please do so.
But 'you made up an argument' is not a counter to someone presenting an argument.
No, not virtually all buffs are concentration. Those are spells that buff, a lot of class based ones don't require concentration. It is not a barrier because you can either choose between buffing or damage dealing at a specific moment, or you can design in class buffs that don't require concentration.
You said you do not want OP, but you want an arcane class that ignores a primary limitation on arcane buffs (or even divine buffs for that matter) ?
Ugh, why can people not understand this?!?! It should be balanced. If they get buffs that don't require concentration (like many classes do), they would be balanced.
When they can stack? Which is the primary reason for wanting no concentration requirement? And what, exactly is your trade off for this?
A fighter getting extra attacks does not require concentration.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Ugh, why can people not understand this?!?! It should be balanced. If they get buffs that don't require concentration (like many classes do), they would be balanced.
Buffs that don't require concentration are not completely unacceptable, but they need severe restrictions (typically, they're non-stacking unique class features).
Then say something useful. Saying "Newbies couldn't possibly get into D&D if we had more than 13 classes" is not useful. They did it before 5e culled everything, they can do it again. Tasha's Cauldron has the 'Sidekick' classes designed for people who can't be assed to learn how to play D&D but want to play with their buddies anyways. Which, hey! Technically, that's three brand new classes in Tasha's! Whelp, guess you're done now, because we're up to 16 classes and clearly that means 5e is doomed forever. Pack it up, ladies and germs. We're all done here, the game is clearly dead forever.
The game decreases in quality as more classes are added because the number of possible rule combinations increases and it becomes impossible to check them all. That will happen long before another 7 classes are added.
The game depends on being simple so that it can bring in new players. Having 20 classes is going to look overwhelming to a newbie. You might want to look at the principle of over choice.
That's BS. If the game had one class, that would not be better than the 13 it currently has. More options =/= Destruction of D&D. Also, you don't need to introduce new characters to all 20 classes when they start. In fact, you might want to consider having them start with the Sidekick classes if you're so vehemently opposed to more options for new players.
The game can be simple with 20 options for class. There are over 80 races in the game, and I don't see new players not joining the game because of them.
I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
You said that more classes equals a ruined game because too many options would be impossible to keep track of. If you don't like options, just limit your players to one class, then you don't have to keep track of anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Ugh, why can people not understand this?!?! It should be balanced. If they get buffs that don't require concentration (like many classes do), they would be balanced.
Buffs that don't require concentration are not completely unacceptable, but they need severe restrictions (typically, they're non-stacking unique class features).
Thanks for telling me something I already know and have already said.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I am so gorram done with all the deliberate obtuseness and general bottom-basement 'arguments' on this one, Joel. Absolutely nobody who's telling everyone to shut the **** up and stop asking for new options in D&D is arguing in good faith anymore. The rest of us put in a ton of effort trying to show where unused design space existed and where there's room and places for new content to give players exciting new options. The Wrens and Kotaths and such have spent sixty-seven pages now telling us to shut up, **** off, and just play bad subclasses badly with a thin, pallid veneer of Imagination(C), like we're all somehow incapable of understanding how reskinning works.
I'm sick of it, Joel. How can people be this aggressively, intractably ignorant for this long?
Again, I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
Then don't make general statements, next time. I agree with that, but I don't think magic number 13 is the place to stop. There is a balance, and we're not beginning to tip the scales.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The game decreases in quality as more classes are added because the number of possible rule combinations increases and it becomes impossible to check them all. That will happen long before another 7 classes are added.
The game depends on being simple so that it can bring in new players. Having 20 classes is going to look overwhelming to a newbie. You might want to look at the principle of over choice.
That's BS. If the game had one class, that would not be better than the 13 it currently has. More options =/= Destruction of D&D. Also, you don't need to introduce new characters to all 20 classes when they start. In fact, you might want to consider having them start with the Sidekick classes if you're so vehemently opposed to more options for new players.
The game can be simple with 20 options for class. There are over 80 races in the game, and I don't see new players not joining the game because of them.
I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
You said that more classes equals a ruined game because too many options would be impossible to keep track of. If you don't like options, just limit your players to one class, then you don't have to keep track of anything.
Again, I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
And Yurei, Third, Mezzurah, Sposta, I, and many others on this thread believe that 5e is currently sitting on the "too few" end of that spectrum, or at least think that a few more could be added to enhance the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
The game decreases in quality as more classes are added because the number of possible rule combinations increases and it becomes impossible to check them all. That will happen long before another 7 classes are added.
The game depends on being simple so that it can bring in new players. Having 20 classes is going to look overwhelming to a newbie. You might want to look at the principle of over choice.
That's BS. If the game had one class, that would not be better than the 13 it currently has. More options =/= Destruction of D&D. Also, you don't need to introduce new characters to all 20 classes when they start. In fact, you might want to consider having them start with the Sidekick classes if you're so vehemently opposed to more options for new players.
The game can be simple with 20 options for class. There are over 80 races in the game, and I don't see new players not joining the game because of them.
I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
You said that more classes equals a ruined game because too many options would be impossible to keep track of. If you don't like options, just limit your players to one class, then you don't have to keep track of anything.
Again, I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
The problem here is, your metric for how many classes are enough or too many is simply your own opinion. It a valid one that you have every right to have. But it doesn't make Third's own opinion on how many classes are enough any less valid. Or frankly anyone else's opinions on the matter.
For all we know, Wizards could be designing new classes for the future and are just not ready to showcase them or have them play tested yet. We have no way of knowing what they are going to release in the future. I'm sure a lot of people didn't see the things coming to Tasha's as ever being possible but here we are.
I think the conversation got sidetracked onto if Gish specifically was going to be a class, when the questions should be and originally was do we need new classes in 5th edition. The answer of which, I believe is yes.
I am so gorram done with all the deliberate obtuseness and general bottom-basement 'arguments' on this one, Joel. Absolutely nobody who's telling everyone to shut the **** up and stop asking for new options in D&D is arguing in good faith anymore.
Who's telling people to shut up? Telling someone you disagree with their ideas is not telling them to shut up. It's telling them you disagree.
Wren, frankly I agree with Yurei. The last few threads I've seen you jump in, you haven't been posting constructively. If you disagree, you could be doing so more politely and less immediately hostile. You can disagree with a post without immediately jumping to personal attacks, which you did here and a couple other threads I've seen you post in. This isn't a personal attack, it's just my observation.
I agree that there is a balance between too many and too little of an amount of classes, but I don't think we've reached that turning point, or are even near it. We can respectfully disagree, but before we rehash a huge debate spanning tons of pages and posts, maybe go back and read some of the points already made, because it gets really tiring repeating them over and over again. Please try to keep things civil, I do like this debate, but want it to be a good discussion instead of a flamewar.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Tell me how to do the Arcane Warrior then, Pantagruel. Do not use the words "Eldritch Knight", because if the damned Eldritch Knight was what anyone wanted people wouldn't be having this argument, hm?
What currently existing class/subclass/multiclass in Dungeons and Dragons, Fifth Edition, manages to combine arcane power and martial might in a fluid and synergistic manner? How does one fulfill that design space, that character archetype, with nothing whatsoever save existing mechanics?
Tell me how to do the Arcane Warrior then, Pantagruel. Do not use the words "Eldritch Knight", because if the damned Eldritch Knight was what anyone wanted people wouldn't be having this argument, hm?
You do it with an eldritch knight, or a sword bard, or a valor bard, or a bladesinger, or a hexblade. The fact you refuse to use the tools the game gives you doesn't mean the tools don't exist.
I think the conversation got sidetracked onto if Gish specifically was going to be a class, when the questions should be and originally was do we need new classes in 5th edition. The answer of which, I believe is yes.
Not side-tracked, delving into specifics. The viability of adding a gish class falls under the umbrella of this discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Tell me how to do the Arcane Warrior then, Pantagruel. Do not use the words "Eldritch Knight", because if the damned Eldritch Knight was what anyone wanted people wouldn't be having this argument, hm?
You do it with an eldritch knight, or a sword bard, or a valor bard, or a bladesinger, or a hexblade. The fact you refuse to use the tools the game gives you doesn't mean the tools don't exist.
And we have explained so many times why those don't work. This. Seriously. Feels. Like. Banging. My. Head. Against. A. Wall.
A general gish wouldn't curse, wouldn't have instrument proficiencies or most bard things, wouldn't have a spellbook or 9th level spells, and wouldn't have most fighter things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I am so gorram done with all the deliberate obtuseness and general bottom-basement 'arguments' on this one, Joel. Absolutely nobody who's telling everyone to shut the **** up and stop asking for new options in D&D is arguing in good faith anymore.
Who's telling people to shut up? Telling someone you disagree with their ideas is not telling them to shut up. It's telling them you disagree.
We've politely asked multiple times for you guys arguing against new classes to create subclasses that do generally the same thing and fill the same niche as the classes we've designed/proposed. You guys have mostly ignored those, which I am sure you have seen due to the frequency of the request, so what's the holdout? I feel like I'm shouting at a deaf person.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
That's BS. If the game had one class, that would not be better than the 13 it currently has. More options =/= Destruction of D&D. Also, you don't need to introduce new characters to all 20 classes when they start. In fact, you might want to consider having them start with the Sidekick classes if you're so vehemently opposed to more options for new players.
The game can be simple with 20 options for class. There are over 80 races in the game, and I don't see new players not joining the game because of them.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
A fighter getting extra attacks does not require concentration.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
If they're minor enough, sure they can stack. Paladin auras stack. Why do you need a trade-off for giving them buffs? All classes receive them.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Buffs that don't require concentration are not completely unacceptable, but they need severe restrictions (typically, they're non-stacking unique class features).
Can everyone try to calm down and deescalate? I don't want this to become yet another locked thread.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Then say something useful. Saying "Newbies couldn't possibly get into D&D if we had more than 13 classes" is not useful. They did it before 5e culled everything, they can do it again. Tasha's Cauldron has the 'Sidekick' classes designed for people who can't be assed to learn how to play D&D but want to play with their buddies anyways. Which, hey! Technically, that's three brand new classes in Tasha's! Whelp, guess you're done now, because we're up to 16 classes and clearly that means 5e is doomed forever. Pack it up, ladies and germs. We're all done here, the game is clearly dead forever.
Please do not contact or message me.
You said that more classes equals a ruined game because too many options would be impossible to keep track of. If you don't like options, just limit your players to one class, then you don't have to keep track of anything.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Thanks for telling me something I already know and have already said.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I am so gorram done with all the deliberate obtuseness and general bottom-basement 'arguments' on this one, Joel. Absolutely nobody who's telling everyone to shut the **** up and stop asking for new options in D&D is arguing in good faith anymore. The rest of us put in a ton of effort trying to show where unused design space existed and where there's room and places for new content to give players exciting new options. The Wrens and Kotaths and such have spent sixty-seven pages now telling us to shut up, **** off, and just play bad subclasses badly with a thin, pallid veneer of Imagination(C), like we're all somehow incapable of understanding how reskinning works.
I'm sick of it, Joel. How can people be this aggressively, intractably ignorant for this long?
Please do not contact or message me.
Then don't make general statements, next time. I agree with that, but I don't think magic number 13 is the place to stop. There is a balance, and we're not beginning to tip the scales.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
And Yurei, Third, Mezzurah, Sposta, I, and many others on this thread believe that 5e is currently sitting on the "too few" end of that spectrum, or at least think that a few more could be added to enhance the game.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
The problem here is, your metric for how many classes are enough or too many is simply your own opinion. It a valid one that you have every right to have. But it doesn't make Third's own opinion on how many classes are enough any less valid. Or frankly anyone else's opinions on the matter.
For all we know, Wizards could be designing new classes for the future and are just not ready to showcase them or have them play tested yet. We have no way of knowing what they are going to release in the future. I'm sure a lot of people didn't see the things coming to Tasha's as ever being possible but here we are.
Now can we dial the heat back a little everyone.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
I think the conversation got sidetracked onto if Gish specifically was going to be a class, when the questions should be and originally was do we need new classes in 5th edition. The answer of which, I believe is yes.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Who's telling people to shut up? Telling someone you disagree with their ideas is not telling them to shut up. It's telling them you disagree.
Wren, frankly I agree with Yurei. The last few threads I've seen you jump in, you haven't been posting constructively. If you disagree, you could be doing so more politely and less immediately hostile. You can disagree with a post without immediately jumping to personal attacks, which you did here and a couple other threads I've seen you post in. This isn't a personal attack, it's just my observation.
I agree that there is a balance between too many and too little of an amount of classes, but I don't think we've reached that turning point, or are even near it. We can respectfully disagree, but before we rehash a huge debate spanning tons of pages and posts, maybe go back and read some of the points already made, because it gets really tiring repeating them over and over again. Please try to keep things civil, I do like this debate, but want it to be a good discussion instead of a flamewar.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Tell me how to do the Arcane Warrior then, Pantagruel. Do not use the words "Eldritch Knight", because if the damned Eldritch Knight was what anyone wanted people wouldn't be having this argument, hm?
What currently existing class/subclass/multiclass in Dungeons and Dragons, Fifth Edition, manages to combine arcane power and martial might in a fluid and synergistic manner? How does one fulfill that design space, that character archetype, with nothing whatsoever save existing mechanics?
Please do not contact or message me.
You do it with an eldritch knight, or a sword bard, or a valor bard, or a bladesinger, or a hexblade. The fact you refuse to use the tools the game gives you doesn't mean the tools don't exist.
Not side-tracked, delving into specifics. The viability of adding a gish class falls under the umbrella of this discussion.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
And we have explained so many times why those don't work. This. Seriously. Feels. Like. Banging. My. Head. Against. A. Wall.
A general gish wouldn't curse, wouldn't have instrument proficiencies or most bard things, wouldn't have a spellbook or 9th level spells, and wouldn't have most fighter things.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
We've politely asked multiple times for you guys arguing against new classes to create subclasses that do generally the same thing and fill the same niche as the classes we've designed/proposed. You guys have mostly ignored those, which I am sure you have seen due to the frequency of the request, so what's the holdout? I feel like I'm shouting at a deaf person.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms