Okay, I'll respond with an analogy. D&D is a plant, a tree for example. This tree needs pruning with errata, sunlight from money that the players give for the hobby, to breathe fresh air, that is the new settings and adventures, and a solid foundation in the ground that is legacy, tradition, and history of D&D. The crunch (rules, classes, races) are the water that keeps the tree alive. D&D needs all of these aspects, but too much of any of them will kill the tree. Too many errata will cause D&D's rules to be fluid and unknown, causing more and more debates of the rules, which will cut away too many branches of the tree. Too much money, and WotC is suddenly only making rules to grab cash, which will scorch the tree. Too many settings and adventures, and they will stop feeling unique and distinct. Too hard a foundation, and the tree is stuck in stone and starved of ever changing or growing. Too much water, and you will drown the hobby with bloated rules, too many classes, and too many options for the races.
But, there is another aspect of this. Too little errata, and the broken aspects will be set in stone, and the hobby/tree can't grow properly. Too little money, and the company goes bankrupt, and the hobby/tree starves. Not enough settings and adventures, and the hobby/tree is suffocated by lack of ideas and concepts. Not enough of a solid foundation, and the tree will be blown over and die by no continuity in the hobby.
But, most importantly to this discussion, D&D needs water. Not too much, or the game/tree will be drowned by content and rot away, and have a new edition take its place. Too little, the hobby/tree is killed by thirst, for lack of content (classes, races, races).
Is the tree drowning right now? No. It's not. It's nowhere close to drowning. Is the tree being killed by thirst? I am not sure. I certainly am thirsty for more content, but I am not being killed by this need right now. Certain parts of the tree are fine and healthy, even prospering, but some parts are thirsty. Paladins are fine, Bards are mostly fine, so are Wizards, Barbarians, Fighters, and most other classes and aspects of the game. But, D&D is thirsty for an arcane gish class. D&D is thirsty for psionics right now. D&D is thirsty for a few more classes, but not too many. We don't want to flood the tree, but we don't want to keep it from drinking.
Now, I don't want these classes to be added immediately. I only want to add maybe one or two at a time, here a little and there a little. Psionics in Dark Sun, Warlords, Occultists, Arcane Gish, and other classes in future books, maybe other setting books. We don't need to go crazy, but we do need more. Just a bit more.
I'm currently in the process of making a Shaman class. Mine is a pact magic user, renamed to Primal Magic. Each subclass summons a different type of spirit, and are my version of the Summoner class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Okay, I'll respond with an analogy. D&D is a plant, a tree for example. This tree needs pruning with errata, sunlight from money that the players give for the hobby, to breathe fresh air, that is the new settings and adventures, and a solid foundation in the ground that is legacy, tradition, and history of D&D. The crunch (rules, classes, races) are the water that keeps the tree alive. D&D needs all of these aspects, but too much of any of them will kill the tree. Too many errata will cause D&D's rules to be fluid and unknown, causing more and more debates of the rules, which will cut away too many branches of the tree. Too much money, and WotC is suddenly only making rules to grab cash, which will scorch the tree. Too many settings and adventures, and they will stop feeling unique and distinct. Too hard a foundation, and the tree is stuck in stone and starved of ever changing or growing. Too much water, and you will drown the hobby with bloated rules, too many classes, and too many options for the races.
But, there is another aspect of this. Too little errata, and the broken aspects will be set in stone, and the hobby/tree can't grow properly. Too little money, and the company goes bankrupt, and the hobby/tree starves. Not enough settings and adventures, and the hobby/tree is suffocated by lack of ideas and concepts. Not enough of a solid foundation, and the tree will be blown over and die by no continuity in the hobby.
But, most importantly to this discussion, D&D needs water. Not too much, or the game/tree will be drowned by content and rot away, and have a new edition take its place. Too little, the hobby/tree is killed by thirst, for lack of content (classes, races, races).
Is the tree drowning right now? No. It's not. It's nowhere close to drowning. Is the tree being killed by thirst? I am not sure. I certainly am thirsty for more content, but I am not being killed by this need right now. Certain parts of the tree are fine and healthy, even prospering, but some parts are thirsty. Paladins are fine, Bards are mostly fine, so are Wizards, Barbarians, Fighters, and most other classes and aspects of the game. But, D&D is thirsty for an arcane gish class. D&D is thirsty for psionics right now. D&D is thirsty for a few more classes, but not too many. We don't want to flood the tree, but we don't want to keep it from drinking.
Now, I don't want these classes to be added immediately. I only want to add maybe one or two at a time, here a little and there a little. Psionics in Dark Sun, Warlords, Occultists, Arcane Gish, and other classes in future books, maybe other setting books. We don't need to go crazy, but we do need more. Just a bit more.
How's this for an analogy?
It's ok ... I'll point out you blur yourself and D&D when it comes to thirst, and I thought you as a player were the thermogenic entity creating the money light.
But also do you really consider, what are you and your working group at now, four classes? Is that really a "bit" more? The powers that be at WotC have never said "no more classes, ever." After all, we have Artificer. We sort of have and sort of have disavowed Blood Hunter. As a member of the player community, you have ideas and have found affinities, and have developed some ideas. Pressure test them, don't just write them up, go have them played, all the way to level 20. And when someone says, "I didn't like the way the occultist magics were divided among white/black/grey, and I _liked_ Twin Peaks. Consequently I don't see myself playing the class." Think on it instead of saying within minutes, "I disagree and am keeping it."
Bottom line, for everyone here, to quote The Dude (and not to misgender anyone on either side of the quote), "Well, that's just your opinion, man." Whatever stakes people are holding here, or think they're holding. No one "wins" this argument here. New classes may come out, or new a new edition comes out where they toss out polyhedrals for a hip new coin flipping mechanic because the d6 system scene went that way. For me, it's fun to read new ideas. It's also fun to see players see concepts put out there before in the game and provide insightful critiques. But slightly above a third in two polls amounting 400ish people (assuming you don't have people who read both forums voting twice) isn't going to really change THE game. It may change the way you do your game. And that's cool.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Scoradin doesn't have to be Divine. Paladins don't have to get magic from a god. Also sorcerer is the furthest from Divine.
Scoradin is the best Gish build because you can use slots for magic or smites and with shield, absorb elements, counterspell you are great at defensive magic.
It's ok ... I'll point out you blur yourself and D&D when it comes to thirst, and I thought you as a player were the thermogenic entity creating the money light.
No, the sunlight is the money that players give the hobby, the players themselves are part of the tree, as are their characters.
But also do you really consider, what are you and your working group at now, four classes? Is that really a "bit" more? The powers that be at WotC have never said "no more classes, ever." After all, we have Artificer. We sort of have and sort of have disavowed Blood Hunter. As a member of the player community, you have ideas and have found affinities, and have developed some ideas. Pressure test them, don't just write them up, go have them played, all the way to level 20. And when someone says, "I didn't like the way the occultist magics were divided among white/black/grey, and I _liked_ Twin Peaks. Consequently I don't see myself playing the class." Think on it instead of saying within minutes, "I disagree and am keeping it."
We're working on the Psion, Warlord, Shaman, Occultist, and an Arcane Gish. That's 5, but I want more than that. That is a bit more, compared to what previous editions had. Also, WotC has hinted that they are not keen on adding more classes, from their focusing on subclasses, abandonment of the Mystic, and statements by Jeremy Crawford on the matter. I'm going to playtest my classes when I have the chance (2020 is awful, and won't let me do D&D).
Bottom line, for everyone here, to quote The Dude (and not to misgender anyone on either side of the quote), "Well, that's just your opinion, man." Whatever stakes people are holding here, or think they're holding. No one "wins" this argument here. New classes may come out, or new a new edition comes out where they toss out polyhedrals for a hip new coin flipping mechanic because the d6 system scene went that way. For me, it's fun to read new ideas. It's also fun to see players see concepts put out there before in the game and provide insightful critiques. But slightly above a third in two polls amounting 400ish people (assuming you don't have people who read both forums voting twice) isn't going to really change THE game. It may change the way you do your game. And that's cool.
There is a win, here, if people are convinced. I personally was convinced on certain classes that should be added (Arcane Gish, Warlord, Psion, etc), a few in this thread. But, it is more likely that the majority of us are impossible to persuade, and we're trying to move an immovable object.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Scoradin doesn't have to be Divine. Paladins don't have to get magic from a god. Also sorcerer is the furthest from Divine.
Scoradin is the best Gish build because you can use slots for magic or smites and with shield, absorb elements, counterspell you are great at defensive magic.
If you want Gish look no further!
Getting magic from a god is not what makes divine magic divine. Paladins are divine casters, which makes sorcadins partially divine casters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Dungeons and dragons ain't all about fighting. That's why backgrounds, and coins, and gods exist. True, the rulebooks are mostly about fighting, but that's because fighting is inherently complex. I have had huge fun in D&D games where no fighting occurred at all. So.. If you want to play Pathfinder, leave! Go to Pathfinder Beyond, or whatever. Because... This website is for d&d players. It's in the name.
If you want to make constant story - write a book of prose. I know it can be done - I've done it - but, c'mon! D&D 5e is only fun for those who want to play it. Those who don't are just being pains, inflicting their painful opinion on the wider multiverse.
I actually tend to agree with you, traditionally D&D is a game about exploration for the purpose of finding treasure, which usually involved fighting. That is at the root of the classic D&D model. Fighting however is not inherently complex, it actually can be as simple a D20 roll vs. AC. That can be the entirety of a combat mechanic and in a narrative role-playing game that isn't about fighting that is more then sufficient. You add more if fighting is more important to the game and when you consider the overwhelming majority of the rules in D&D are rules about resolving fight, it should be quite clear what message the designers are sending about the game. If that isn't enough proof, pick up EVERY D&D module ever written, 90% about fighting.
5e is a fun game but its a game that actually opposes the desires of the community, at least if we are to take their word on it that this is a role-playing game about story and narrative. I would argue there is no evidence of that other then words and conversation. In practice, whether you watch streams or watch live games, what most people do with D&D is go in dungeons, fight monsters and take their stuff. This is the primary activity of the game in the overwhelming majority of tables. I have been at this for 40 years I have never seen any evidence that would suggest anything to the contrary, no in games I run, have played in, have watched, podcast, streams... all of it. Never seen it being used in any other way and again, I see no evidence in the design that it is anything else. The only place you ever see the game being defined as being about story, narrative and characters is in conversations on forums in the abstracted concept of playing the game. In practice its just not done.
I've often wondered whether the GP counts and +#s affixed to magic weapons in D&D hoards is some sort of verbal/written analog to the "ca-ching" sounds the video game industry borrowed from the casino gaming industry to compel greater "engagement" from their players.
But seriously, to your 40 years, I've only been at it off and on for 35 years not all of it married to swords and sorceries either ... so maybe it's a generational thing, but I haven't done the "dungeons, fight monsters, take their stuff" since 6th grade. Since Jr. High it's more "end or prevent a war", "whatever happened to so and so?", "keep the peace," "we are a rescue team ... not assassins ... unless the paladin and and cleric aren't coming to this week's session in which case sure we can be a very efficient kill team" and more often than not, "what's over that mountain?"
Part of me wants to say the groups that play today, what you hear talking about is different than when you and I were starting because younger generations relationship with violence is different. The more calloused play Doom and get jazzed by a kill streak, those who are aware of what someone's eyes look like as life leaves them ... when they sit at a table they may think of handling a sword differently. There's disparagement of the older generation as "murderhobo". I'm sure it happens among younger players, but just because you don't see it over your range of experience, the games not just your range of experience. Heck, when you were winning trophies (and yeah, that response did jog my memory, I appreciate it, I remember now black and white photos in RPGA newsletters of winners there was a conversation in place like Dragon about a spectrum of gaming where "Monty Haul DMs" and "Muchkin players" were aspersions cast at the extremes of one side of the conversation (I won't use debate because it never seemed like a fight because pre-internet). Hack and Slash was another gradient of play style. It sounds like you were a couple of rungs away from that with probably puzzle/dungeon "solving" a key (so to speak) to your mode, and gradients reach another side of the field where yeah, it was about character and narrative arcs etc. I mean Dragolance happened, and while maybe a little rail roady, those modules and subsequent world build wasn't Keep on the Borderlands or Expedition to Barrier Peaks.
As for new classes. I'm still agnostic. I liked hearing some of the ideas posted, though they still seem more mechanic lacking organic in conceit (but some of the official classes rub me bad too, so). I think some of what is perceived as outright hostility is what an actual developer in any number of industries would call pressure testing, and the innovation engineers ought to be more mindful that attachment and a sense of "accomplished hard work" doesn't mean "good" (and a forum isn't really a great judge of a new contribution to a game, actually letting the contribution play out is). For the few voices that aren't simply trolling yet are being outright hostile, I'm confused, what you're attacking isn't of any consequence to the game. These aren't going to show up as UA (or at least overwhelmingly unlikely) anytime soon. It's greater windmill tilting than those who really think developing new in house home brew classes (some of which have existed as house rule classes going back to 1st editions) will actually change THE game. It might affect THEIR game; but won't hurt YOURS. So I'd say the entrenched combativeness within both "sides" (though I'd like to think Team Agnostic is the true force to reckon) is disappointing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Okay, we've done our fix for the gish gap, can you do yours in a satisfying way of filling it?
Depends who expects to be satisfied? I'd be tempted by something along the lines of
Class Feature Variant: Alternate Spell Schools: an eldritch knight or arcane trickster may choose alternate spell schools (but is still limited to 2).
Feat: Self-Enhancer: requires spellcasting. when you cast a spell with a casting time of one action, a range other than self, and a duration of concentration, on yourself and no other targets, you may do so as a bonus action and have advantage on concentration checks to maintain that spell.
Feat: Blade Caster: requires spellcasting and extra attack. You may use a weapon as a spellcasting focus. When you cast a spell that requires a spell attack, you may make a melee weapon attack instead. If successful, the target suffers both the spell effect and a normal weapon effect (might have to restrict further).
It's ok ... I'll point out you blur yourself and D&D when it comes to thirst, and I thought you as a player were the thermogenic entity creating the money light.
No, the sunlight is the money that players give the hobby, the players themselves are part of the tree, as are their characters.
But also do you really consider, what are you and your working group at now, four classes? Is that really a "bit" more? The powers that be at WotC have never said "no more classes, ever." After all, we have Artificer. We sort of have and sort of have disavowed Blood Hunter. As a member of the player community, you have ideas and have found affinities, and have developed some ideas. Pressure test them, don't just write them up, go have them played, all the way to level 20. And when someone says, "I didn't like the way the occultist magics were divided among white/black/grey, and I _liked_ Twin Peaks. Consequently I don't see myself playing the class." Think on it instead of saying within minutes, "I disagree and am keeping it."
We're working on the Psion, Warlord, Shaman, Occultist, and an Arcane Gish. That's 5, but I want more than that. That is a bit more, compared to what previous editions had. Also, WotC has hinted that they are not keen on adding more classes, from their focusing on subclasses, abandonment of the Mystic, and statements by Jeremy Crawford on the matter. I'm going to playtest my classes when I have the chance (2020 is awful, and won't let me do D&D).
Bottom line, for everyone here, to quote The Dude (and not to misgender anyone on either side of the quote), "Well, that's just your opinion, man." Whatever stakes people are holding here, or think they're holding. No one "wins" this argument here. New classes may come out, or new a new edition comes out where they toss out polyhedrals for a hip new coin flipping mechanic because the d6 system scene went that way. For me, it's fun to read new ideas. It's also fun to see players see concepts put out there before in the game and provide insightful critiques. But slightly above a third in two polls amounting 400ish people (assuming you don't have people who read both forums voting twice) isn't going to really change THE game. It may change the way you do your game. And that's cool.
There is a win, here, if people are convinced. I personally was convinced on certain classes that should be added (Arcane Gish, Warlord, Psion, etc), a few in this thread. But, it is more likely that the majority of us are impossible to persuade, and we're trying to move an immovable object.
You don't seem to realize it but with the money coming from players who are the plant, your metaphor is broken or your going a very rhizomatic route. In English class we'd call this a mixed or broken metaphor.
5 classes and wanting more would constitute a "class explosion" in proportion to the existing number of classes in a game. I get it you want a literal game changer. Other's don't, which leads us to your scorekeeping.
I don't think there's a lot of convincing going on here. There are people "entertained" or appreciative of both sides. But the by and large adoption of exclamation points are folks with strong stances for whatever reasons, and a few 11th hour show ups who want to rebottle the last 60+ pages all for them since they can't be bothered to read the whole thread. Regardless what do you actually, measurably win by getting a handful of (how many?) participants on this thread? It's fun to exchange ideas, but when wagons start getting circled and a "you people" v "us people" breaks out over what's for all real world considerations simply a matter of taste, So in the end, we're back at at best "debate team" wins, so maybe you can be proud of skills, but you're still arguing on the internet. I'm here because this is fun for me. I worry a lot of other participants are here for less merry intent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You don't seem to realize it but with the money coming from players who are the plant, your metaphor is broken or your going a very rhizomatic route. In English class we'd call this a mixed or broken metaphor.
Okay, maybe this will clarify it. We are the tree, and the fruit from the tree is the hobby. The game cannot exist without us, and we create the game (fun) using all of the other elements.
5 classes and wanting more would constitute a "class explosion" in proportion to the existing number of classes in a game. I get it you want a literal game changer. Other's don't, which leads us to your scorekeeping.
I don't think adding more than 5 classes would constitute an explosion. I think we'll know when we have class bloat, because we don't have it now.
I don't think there's a lot of convincing going on here. There are people "entertained" or appreciative of both sides. But the by and large adoption of exclamation points are folks with strong stances for whatever reasons, and a few 11th hour show ups who want to rebottle the last 60+ pages all for them since they can't be bothered to read the whole thread. Regardless what do you actually, measurably win by getting a handful of (how many?) participants on this thread? It's fun to exchange ideas, but when wagons start getting circled and a "you people" v "us people" breaks out over what's for all real world considerations simply a matter of taste, So in the end, we're back at at best "debate team" wins, so maybe you can be proud of skills, but you're still arguing on the internet. I'm here because this is fun for me. I worry a lot of other participants are here for less merry intent.
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.
5 classes and wanting more would constitute a "class explosion" in proportion to the existing number of classes in a game. I get it you want a literal game changer. Other's don't, which leads us to your scorekeeping.
I don't think adding more than 5 classes would constitute an explosion. I think we'll know when we have class bloat, because we don't have it now.
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 think people can reasonably disagree on how many classes constitute an explosion. But with 5, and you're talking about at least 5 in your ideal, that's starting at least at a 38% increase. How would Wizards pace that? I think there's also a blindspot in you furtherance "I think we'll know when we have class bloat, because we don't have it now." You're comfortable with "we get to class bloat" where I think even "approaching class bloat" is a hard no with WotC. The DnDBeyond Forum is not a power lever that's going to make real change to the official output, especially given the metrics of your polls. You may have sympathy for a home-brew class tool, but I believe that's not a licensee call. I think the most productive direction this thread can take, and I think you and others have already done so, is "moving on" to the productive stage with subthread in the home-brew forum beginning with "ok, I think D&D needs this class for these mechanical or organic feel reasons. Here's what I've worked up to address that niche, the NishGish."
I ended there because of your last point. To take that on more specifically, here's the thing, there are a handful of posters that I've set to ignore over my time on this forum because they just aren't productive or respectful discussants. Even though I ignore one of those posters, I can see at least four pages of posts in this thread (closing on 6% of this threads volume) bringing up to speed someone who is belaboring asked and answered points, someone who simply will not read the established argument and productive work done within that argument, and in doing so frankly exacerbates the needless tension between "sides". It's like something out of the Internet Research Agency's psyOps playbook on inflaming communities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To be honest I'd be happy with a sorcerer with the smite and strike spells from ranger and paladin. Preferably a thematically neutral one which could be reflavored as a bloodline for many other things. It would make a gish far far more fluid than bladesinger or EK, even if it was still slightly worse.
The trouble is sorcerer subclasses don't get new spells. And even subclasses which get new spells only get a few. And even if you do a divine soul treatment and give them the entire of one spell list, the smite/strike spells are spread across two different lists.
This is my issue with subclasses. They're so minor that they provide basically no meaningful change to how the class plays.
Which then leads to these class black holes where a concept overlaps too much with a current main class, and is too large to fit into a subclass.
There does exist the possibility of being overly cautious. Things are healthy right now, but eventually there will be a point where changes have to come in order for 5e to remain healthy, or make way for 6e; we're starting to see this right now with the Tahsa's book that's coming out, methinks.
As to how would WotC pace releasing new classes? I forget where it was (I think it may have been one of the videos for the Eberron book that came out) but Jeremy Crawford went on record as saying the most likely place to see new classes come out would be in setting books similar to the Eberron book, which had the Artificer. Now, lately we have been seeing an increase in setting books, but many of them have been either M:tG crossovers or collaborations with 3rd parties, leaving quite a number of older settings untouched. If they continue following the pattern they have been, which seems to be to release an older setting book every other year or so, that would probably be a good model for them to put out another class every so often without inundating the game in too short of a span.
(mind you, I don't know if they're still holding to that philosophy now that they're reprinting the entire artificer in Tasha's, but that's adifferent conversation methinks)
(also, I think the focus on hardcover books is a smidge archaic; I think they could probaly get away with releasing such content piecemeal on the DMG as well, like they do with the Extra Life content)
Personally I think that bard, EK, and bladesinger are objectively good subclasses. They're balanced and have lots of cool mechanics. They're just not good gishes. Hexblade is not a good subclass. It's overpowered as a dip and at the core of half the multiclass nightmares which exist. If hexblade was submitted as a homebrew, people would rip it to shreds as allowing too many exploits.
Ranger and Paladin are good gishes. Which is why I'd like to see an arcane version rather than a primal or divine version.
So yes, by all means, let's not destroy this, let's go very prudently, one step at the time and testing small ideas through UA and leave the rest homebrew. It does not prevent people from creating exactly what they want in their own games. But why should they be allowed to take risks for the whole community ? WotC has been managing this very well so far, and created a really good game, otherwise all the people wanting more classes would have left by now, right ? ;)
That's something WotC needs to be super careful of, actually. Yurei put up a thread a while back of another company (I forget which one) announcing an AD&D5e that's currently being worked on. I have no idea how successful that particular project will be, but if enough people decide that 5e has gotten stale and go over to another competitor with a similar project, that could potentially be a significant headache for WotC.
Personally, I'm not discontented to the point of jumping ship myself (nor do I consider myself close to doing so), but I do think that if WotC continues to play the "safe" game for too long, then they run the risk of another Pathfinder situation unfolding in their hands.
Kotath, I really don't know where you're getting this idea of "We want as many classes as we can think of and we want them right now"; perhaps someone in the 70+ pages of this thread has said that, but I think most people involved, such as Third_Sundering and myself, have been for the bulk of our participation in this thread saying that there is room for more classes, and that we would like to see them at some point in the future rather than all at once. Likewise, our arguments havent been to add classes for the sake of adding classes, it is that we think the game will be healthier if it explored at least some of these spaces, eventually.
(On that vein, if you find it frustrating that people mischaracterize your position...please make sure that you are not doing the same to people who don't agree with your position either. I find that to be incredibly frustrating as well)
Personally I think that bard, EK, and bladesinger are objectively good subclasses. They're balanced and have lots of cool mechanics. They're just not good gishes. Hexblade is not a good subclass. It's overpowered as a dip and at the core of half the multiclass nightmares which exist. If hexblade was submitted as a homebrew, people would rip it to shreds as allowing too many exploits.
Ranger and Paladin are good gishes. Which is why I'd like to see an arcane version rather than a primal or divine version.
Then homebrew it, or just simply say that it's not divine but arcane, and it's over and done with. Why do you need it to be an official class ? If it's that important to you and that well balanced, you should be able to convince your DM.
Finding a table which allows class homebrew is rare. And gaming tables aren't exactly common in my part of the world.
Also the excuse 'just say it's arcane and not divine' doesn't work. It's like playing a cleric and saying 'well no i'm actually a wizard'. Does that mean wizards and sorcerers are no longer needed as classes? I could even claim my wizard is a barbarian, and casting fireballs is actually hitting people with a greataxe. It's all just flavour right?
As I've said many times, there are lots of features from paladin and ranger which do not suit an arcane gish. It's not exactly satisfying to make believe that my lay on hands healing allies is actually casting lightning at my enemies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay, I'll respond with an analogy. D&D is a plant, a tree for example. This tree needs pruning with errata, sunlight from money that the players give for the hobby, to breathe fresh air, that is the new settings and adventures, and a solid foundation in the ground that is legacy, tradition, and history of D&D. The crunch (rules, classes, races) are the water that keeps the tree alive. D&D needs all of these aspects, but too much of any of them will kill the tree. Too many errata will cause D&D's rules to be fluid and unknown, causing more and more debates of the rules, which will cut away too many branches of the tree. Too much money, and WotC is suddenly only making rules to grab cash, which will scorch the tree. Too many settings and adventures, and they will stop feeling unique and distinct. Too hard a foundation, and the tree is stuck in stone and starved of ever changing or growing. Too much water, and you will drown the hobby with bloated rules, too many classes, and too many options for the races.
But, there is another aspect of this. Too little errata, and the broken aspects will be set in stone, and the hobby/tree can't grow properly. Too little money, and the company goes bankrupt, and the hobby/tree starves. Not enough settings and adventures, and the hobby/tree is suffocated by lack of ideas and concepts. Not enough of a solid foundation, and the tree will be blown over and die by no continuity in the hobby.
But, most importantly to this discussion, D&D needs water. Not too much, or the game/tree will be drowned by content and rot away, and have a new edition take its place. Too little, the hobby/tree is killed by thirst, for lack of content (classes, races, races).
Is the tree drowning right now? No. It's not. It's nowhere close to drowning. Is the tree being killed by thirst? I am not sure. I certainly am thirsty for more content, but I am not being killed by this need right now. Certain parts of the tree are fine and healthy, even prospering, but some parts are thirsty. Paladins are fine, Bards are mostly fine, so are Wizards, Barbarians, Fighters, and most other classes and aspects of the game. But, D&D is thirsty for an arcane gish class. D&D is thirsty for psionics right now. D&D is thirsty for a few more classes, but not too many. We don't want to flood the tree, but we don't want to keep it from drinking.
Now, I don't want these classes to be added immediately. I only want to add maybe one or two at a time, here a little and there a little. Psionics in Dark Sun, Warlords, Occultists, Arcane Gish, and other classes in future books, maybe other setting books. We don't need to go crazy, but we do need more. Just a bit more.
How's this for an analogy?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
We definitely need more. being able to create your own character with such detail and meticulation is what makes DnD so great.
Also what ever happened to half mimics? No one ever seems to mention theme anymore.
Personally I would like a deal maker class it would be a subclass of sorcerer.
But that's just my opinion.
I'm currently in the process of making a Shaman class. Mine is a pact magic user, renamed to Primal Magic. Each subclass summons a different type of spirit, and are my version of the Summoner class.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's ok ... I'll point out you blur yourself and D&D when it comes to thirst, and I thought you as a player were the thermogenic entity creating the money light.
But also do you really consider, what are you and your working group at now, four classes? Is that really a "bit" more? The powers that be at WotC have never said "no more classes, ever." After all, we have Artificer. We sort of have and sort of have disavowed Blood Hunter. As a member of the player community, you have ideas and have found affinities, and have developed some ideas. Pressure test them, don't just write them up, go have them played, all the way to level 20. And when someone says, "I didn't like the way the occultist magics were divided among white/black/grey, and I _liked_ Twin Peaks. Consequently I don't see myself playing the class." Think on it instead of saying within minutes, "I disagree and am keeping it."
Bottom line, for everyone here, to quote The Dude (and not to misgender anyone on either side of the quote), "Well, that's just your opinion, man." Whatever stakes people are holding here, or think they're holding. No one "wins" this argument here. New classes may come out, or new a new edition comes out where they toss out polyhedrals for a hip new coin flipping mechanic because the d6 system scene went that way. For me, it's fun to read new ideas. It's also fun to see players see concepts put out there before in the game and provide insightful critiques. But slightly above a third in two polls amounting 400ish people (assuming you don't have people who read both forums voting twice) isn't going to really change THE game. It may change the way you do your game. And that's cool.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Scoradin doesn't have to be Divine. Paladins don't have to get magic from a god. Also sorcerer is the furthest from Divine.
Scoradin is the best Gish build because you can use slots for magic or smites and with shield, absorb elements, counterspell you are great at defensive magic.
If you want Gish look no further!
No, the sunlight is the money that players give the hobby, the players themselves are part of the tree, as are their characters.
We're working on the Psion, Warlord, Shaman, Occultist, and an Arcane Gish. That's 5, but I want more than that. That is a bit more, compared to what previous editions had. Also, WotC has hinted that they are not keen on adding more classes, from their focusing on subclasses, abandonment of the Mystic, and statements by Jeremy Crawford on the matter. I'm going to playtest my classes when I have the chance (2020 is awful, and won't let me do D&D).
There is a win, here, if people are convinced. I personally was convinced on certain classes that should be added (Arcane Gish, Warlord, Psion, etc), a few in this thread. But, it is more likely that the majority of us are impossible to persuade, and we're trying to move an immovable object.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Getting magic from a god is not what makes divine magic divine. Paladins are divine casters, which makes sorcadins partially divine casters.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
In both threads, there have been about 500 answers.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I've often wondered whether the GP counts and +#s affixed to magic weapons in D&D hoards is some sort of verbal/written analog to the "ca-ching" sounds the video game industry borrowed from the casino gaming industry to compel greater "engagement" from their players.
But seriously, to your 40 years, I've only been at it off and on for 35 years not all of it married to swords and sorceries either ... so maybe it's a generational thing, but I haven't done the "dungeons, fight monsters, take their stuff" since 6th grade. Since Jr. High it's more "end or prevent a war", "whatever happened to so and so?", "keep the peace," "we are a rescue team ... not assassins ... unless the paladin and and cleric aren't coming to this week's session in which case sure we can be a very efficient kill team" and more often than not, "what's over that mountain?"
Part of me wants to say the groups that play today, what you hear talking about is different than when you and I were starting because younger generations relationship with violence is different. The more calloused play Doom and get jazzed by a kill streak, those who are aware of what someone's eyes look like as life leaves them ... when they sit at a table they may think of handling a sword differently. There's disparagement of the older generation as "murderhobo". I'm sure it happens among younger players, but just because you don't see it over your range of experience, the games not just your range of experience. Heck, when you were winning trophies (and yeah, that response did jog my memory, I appreciate it, I remember now black and white photos in RPGA newsletters of winners there was a conversation in place like Dragon about a spectrum of gaming where "Monty Haul DMs" and "Muchkin players" were aspersions cast at the extremes of one side of the conversation (I won't use debate because it never seemed like a fight because pre-internet). Hack and Slash was another gradient of play style. It sounds like you were a couple of rungs away from that with probably puzzle/dungeon "solving" a key (so to speak) to your mode, and gradients reach another side of the field where yeah, it was about character and narrative arcs etc. I mean Dragolance happened, and while maybe a little rail roady, those modules and subsequent world build wasn't Keep on the Borderlands or Expedition to Barrier Peaks.
As for new classes. I'm still agnostic. I liked hearing some of the ideas posted, though they still seem more mechanic lacking organic in conceit (but some of the official classes rub me bad too, so). I think some of what is perceived as outright hostility is what an actual developer in any number of industries would call pressure testing, and the innovation engineers ought to be more mindful that attachment and a sense of "accomplished hard work" doesn't mean "good" (and a forum isn't really a great judge of a new contribution to a game, actually letting the contribution play out is). For the few voices that aren't simply trolling yet are being outright hostile, I'm confused, what you're attacking isn't of any consequence to the game. These aren't going to show up as UA (or at least overwhelmingly unlikely) anytime soon. It's greater windmill tilting than those who really think developing new in house home brew classes (some of which have existed as house rule classes going back to 1st editions) will actually change THE game. It might affect THEIR game; but won't hurt YOURS. So I'd say the entrenched combativeness within both "sides" (though I'd like to think Team Agnostic is the true force to reckon) is disappointing.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Depends who expects to be satisfied? I'd be tempted by something along the lines of
You don't seem to realize it but with the money coming from players who are the plant, your metaphor is broken or your going a very rhizomatic route. In English class we'd call this a mixed or broken metaphor.
5 classes and wanting more would constitute a "class explosion" in proportion to the existing number of classes in a game. I get it you want a literal game changer. Other's don't, which leads us to your scorekeeping.
I don't think there's a lot of convincing going on here. There are people "entertained" or appreciative of both sides. But the by and large adoption of exclamation points are folks with strong stances for whatever reasons, and a few 11th hour show ups who want to rebottle the last 60+ pages all for them since they can't be bothered to read the whole thread. Regardless what do you actually, measurably win by getting a handful of (how many?) participants on this thread? It's fun to exchange ideas, but when wagons start getting circled and a "you people" v "us people" breaks out over what's for all real world considerations simply a matter of taste, So in the end, we're back at at best "debate team" wins, so maybe you can be proud of skills, but you're still arguing on the internet. I'm here because this is fun for me. I worry a lot of other participants are here for less merry intent.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Okay, maybe this will clarify it. We are the tree, and the fruit from the tree is the hobby. The game cannot exist without us, and we create the game (fun) using all of the other elements.
I don't think adding more than 5 classes would constitute an explosion. I think we'll know when we have class bloat, because we don't have it now.
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.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think people can reasonably disagree on how many classes constitute an explosion. But with 5, and you're talking about at least 5 in your ideal, that's starting at least at a 38% increase. How would Wizards pace that? I think there's also a blindspot in you furtherance "I think we'll know when we have class bloat, because we don't have it now." You're comfortable with "we get to class bloat" where I think even "approaching class bloat" is a hard no with WotC. The DnDBeyond Forum is not a power lever that's going to make real change to the official output, especially given the metrics of your polls. You may have sympathy for a home-brew class tool, but I believe that's not a licensee call. I think the most productive direction this thread can take, and I think you and others have already done so, is "moving on" to the productive stage with subthread in the home-brew forum beginning with "ok, I think D&D needs this class for these mechanical or organic feel reasons. Here's what I've worked up to address that niche, the NishGish."
I ended there because of your last point. To take that on more specifically, here's the thing, there are a handful of posters that I've set to ignore over my time on this forum because they just aren't productive or respectful discussants. Even though I ignore one of those posters, I can see at least four pages of posts in this thread (closing on 6% of this threads volume) bringing up to speed someone who is belaboring asked and answered points, someone who simply will not read the established argument and productive work done within that argument, and in doing so frankly exacerbates the needless tension between "sides". It's like something out of the Internet Research Agency's psyOps playbook on inflaming communities.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To be honest I'd be happy with a sorcerer with the smite and strike spells from ranger and paladin. Preferably a thematically neutral one which could be reflavored as a bloodline for many other things. It would make a gish far far more fluid than bladesinger or EK, even if it was still slightly worse.
The trouble is sorcerer subclasses don't get new spells. And even subclasses which get new spells only get a few. And even if you do a divine soul treatment and give them the entire of one spell list, the smite/strike spells are spread across two different lists.
This is my issue with subclasses. They're so minor that they provide basically no meaningful change to how the class plays.
Which then leads to these class black holes where a concept overlaps too much with a current main class, and is too large to fit into a subclass.
There does exist the possibility of being overly cautious. Things are healthy right now, but eventually there will be a point where changes have to come in order for 5e to remain healthy, or make way for 6e; we're starting to see this right now with the Tahsa's book that's coming out, methinks.
As to how would WotC pace releasing new classes? I forget where it was (I think it may have been one of the videos for the Eberron book that came out) but Jeremy Crawford went on record as saying the most likely place to see new classes come out would be in setting books similar to the Eberron book, which had the Artificer. Now, lately we have been seeing an increase in setting books, but many of them have been either M:tG crossovers or collaborations with 3rd parties, leaving quite a number of older settings untouched. If they continue following the pattern they have been, which seems to be to release an older setting book every other year or so, that would probably be a good model for them to put out another class every so often without inundating the game in too short of a span.
(mind you, I don't know if they're still holding to that philosophy now that they're reprinting the entire artificer in Tasha's, but that's adifferent conversation methinks)
(also, I think the focus on hardcover books is a smidge archaic; I think they could probaly get away with releasing such content piecemeal on the DMG as well, like they do with the Extra Life content)
Personally I think that bard, EK, and bladesinger are objectively good subclasses. They're balanced and have lots of cool mechanics. They're just not good gishes. Hexblade is not a good subclass. It's overpowered as a dip and at the core of half the multiclass nightmares which exist. If hexblade was submitted as a homebrew, people would rip it to shreds as allowing too many exploits.
Ranger and Paladin are good gishes. Which is why I'd like to see an arcane version rather than a primal or divine version.
That's something WotC needs to be super careful of, actually. Yurei put up a thread a while back of another company (I forget which one) announcing an AD&D5e that's currently being worked on. I have no idea how successful that particular project will be, but if enough people decide that 5e has gotten stale and go over to another competitor with a similar project, that could potentially be a significant headache for WotC.
Personally, I'm not discontented to the point of jumping ship myself (nor do I consider myself close to doing so), but I do think that if WotC continues to play the "safe" game for too long, then they run the risk of another Pathfinder situation unfolding in their hands.
Kotath, I really don't know where you're getting this idea of "We want as many classes as we can think of and we want them right now"; perhaps someone in the 70+ pages of this thread has said that, but I think most people involved, such as Third_Sundering and myself, have been for the bulk of our participation in this thread saying that there is room for more classes, and that we would like to see them at some point in the future rather than all at once. Likewise, our arguments havent been to add classes for the sake of adding classes, it is that we think the game will be healthier if it explored at least some of these spaces, eventually.
(On that vein, if you find it frustrating that people mischaracterize your position...please make sure that you are not doing the same to people who don't agree with your position either. I find that to be incredibly frustrating as well)
Finding a table which allows class homebrew is rare. And gaming tables aren't exactly common in my part of the world.
Also the excuse 'just say it's arcane and not divine' doesn't work. It's like playing a cleric and saying 'well no i'm actually a wizard'. Does that mean wizards and sorcerers are no longer needed as classes? I could even claim my wizard is a barbarian, and casting fireballs is actually hitting people with a greataxe. It's all just flavour right?
As I've said many times, there are lots of features from paladin and ranger which do not suit an arcane gish. It's not exactly satisfying to make believe that my lay on hands healing allies is actually casting lightning at my enemies.