Subclass bloat

[quinron]

With the release of Tasha's, I'm starting to worry that subclass bloat is going to be a real problem going forward (if it isn't already one now). I'm pretty sure this reaction was provoked as a total knee-jerk, but thinking through it, I've decided this bears some consideration.

My main concern is that subclasses carry a lot of content (always at least 3 levels' worth of features), but you only ever get one. Every subclass added in a new book adds one more opportunity cost that you have to balance your choice against, but there's not really an enhanced level of customization coming with it; you're typically just replacing a fixed set of features with a different fixed set of features.

I'm glad to see them adding things like new Fighting Styles, new Path of the Totem choices, new maneuvers, etc., that expand on the core subclasses, but I'm very conscious that these are always being added alongside new subclasses - new subclasses which, in almost every circumstance, totally invalidate these other new options. Which ties back into my main concern - new subclasses don't expand your options, they replace your options. Even the expanded subclass-specific options are totally irrelevant if, for example, you're playing a Champion instead of a Battle Master - both core options, but one of them is going to get a lot more support (and, due to the near-inevitable power creep, almost certainly become stronger) than the other.

Problem is, in the now-firmly-established idiom that 5e's created, I don't know how one might go about fixing or at least tempering this. The first idea that springs to mind is alternate class features, which I think Pathfinder employed quite well with their archetypes and which I think D&D could implement effectively. They toyed with it a bit in Tasha's, but like a lot of things in Tasha's, it feels like "toying with it" is as far as they got by the time the book went to publication.

I also wonder if this concern isn't just the system functioning as intended; 5e's initial design ethos was streamlining, which ipso facto means reducing options. I'm still worried about the content bloat, though; I'm foreseeing 3.5 PrC levels of redundant and/or useless subclasses by the time the edition ends.

[MrStabby]

I think that more content without customisation is kind of... ok.

The things you need to check for balance grows with the number of subclasses. The number of combinations explodes with the number of subclasses/options that can be combined.

By creating new content that doesnt interact strongly they avoid this.

On the other hand the leaning on proficiency bonus rather than class levels for more features now is a step in the opposite direction as your subsequent levels in class B impact your features from class A in multiclass.

Honestly, I think we are still a bit away from subclass bloat being an issue (I worry more about quality than quantity). I think that different races are more bloated than classes.

[MoiMagnus]

Subclass bloat is fine for me.

It's order of magnitude better than class bloat, and it's reasonable localised in term of features as long as they keep the new subclasses within the same design philosophy as the first ones ... which unfortunately doesn't seems to be the case (see new sorcerer subclasses), and is a much more worrying trend IMO than the bloat.

(Additionally, for most classes, subclasses don't start at level 1, so there is much less worrying about multiclassing by having a subclass bloat.)

Due to the much more "localised" nature of the subclass features, if a subclass is problematic at your table, you will have a much better time trying to houserule it and balance it than for a full class.

And in a no-multiclass game, the subclass choice is a one-time choice, possibly at session 0 like the race and class. It's not something like feats, magical objects or spells, that can jump out of nowhere in an existing campaign with unforeseen consequences with a lax enough DM.

DM-side, subclass bloat is probably the least threatening out of all the player-content-bloats.

[Theodoxus]

Subclasses are really the only place they can create new content. You mention Prestige Classes, and in a way, especially the level 3 subclasses, they ARE Prestige Classes. They have simpler pre-requisites (get to level 3 of your class), but they modify the base class in the same way.

WotC even notes your concern and provides a way to change your subclass if you feel a new one better captures your character (or you're (general you, not specific) a munchkin and just want the new shiny). But the game needs new content to remain viable. Players want new options. Not everyone likes the same classes. Even with Tasha's improvements, I'll never play a Sorcerer again, it's just not my bag. No matter what new Domains they come out with, I'll always play a Life Cleric - it fits my prototypical idea of a Cleric I've been using in my headcannon for 40 years and I'm not going to stop now. But other classes, each new thing might intrigue me enough to come out of my healer shell and try swinging an axe or shooting a bow for. The Hexblade finally convinced me to play a Warlock, and it was an enjoyable time for me. No longer was I relegated to EBing all the things like every other Warlock I've seen played. It was a true gish and I loved it. Had to retire him due to time pressures, but I'd probably bring it back out again.

The new summoning spells in Tasha's makes me want to try a micro-minionmaster. Probably a Necromancer. Likewise, the Beastmaster upgrade finally feels like a WoW Hunter (or really, the old Dark Age of Camelot Hunter, more specifically) and that makes me happy.

Yeah, it'd be nice if the same amount of QC were done for these books as the original PHB, DMG and MM were done - like, the same time were given to each, so if when Tasha's were released, the devs had been slowly cooking it for 3 years, not 6 months. The release rate would be the same, just each book would bake a LOT longer. But I get that no company works on that kind of time scale - faster product out means more money in - but it would be nice if the world didn't run that way sometimes.

[Amdy_vill]

so on the topic of Bloat, I don't think 5e will become bloated. I hear a lot of people talking about how 5e doesn't need more content and it's becoming too much to handle, as a dm of nearly 10 years I have found that unless you're playing hyper focuses system like bear heist or dread you will never know everything in the game and that's just something you will have to deal with, WotC makes money off of selling books. I have found the systems only really feel bloated when large amounts of content overlap, like having 6 subclasses for wizard that focus on summoning.

on the topic of expanding class options to make them feel more unique. this is something that they should do, WotC should also focus on making subclasses the can have expansions to their abilities, like how the totem warrior or battle master got new content.

Streamlining doesn't mean less content, it means easy to understand and use content. 3.5 problems wasn't that it wasn't streamlined it was that they published content too fast, which cause some streamlining problems but mostly just made dozens of overlapping ideas and some really bad unplay-tested things.

[OldTrees1]

Subclass design is less flexible than alternate class feature design.

Less flexible in this sense causes 2 symptoms:
1) To cover the same volume of character concepts, you need more subclasses than you would need ACFs.
2) Characters can use fewer subclasses than they can use ACFs.

This means there is more demand for more subclasses (to better represent characters) and less demand for more subclasses (because they are not relevant to many existing characters).

However subclasses are the way 5E chose, so you will see the number of subclasses grow proportional to the number of splat books. Which started rather slow in 5E, but might rapidly accelerate soon.

So, yes, expect some bloat by the end of the edition. This is not really a problem.

[MrStabby]

so on the topic of Bloat, I don't think 5e will become bloated. I hear a lot of people talking about how 5e doesn't need more content and it's becoming too much to handle, as a dm of nearly 10 years I have found that unless you're playing hyper focuses system like bear heist or dread you will never know everything in the game and that's just something you will have to deal with, WotC makes money off of selling books. I have found the systems only really feel bloated when large amounts of content overlap, like having 6 subclasses for wizard that focus on summoning.

on the topic of expanding class options to make them feel more unique. this is something that they should do, WotC should also focus on making subclasses the can have expansions to their abilities, like how the totem warrior or battle master got new content.

Streamlining doesn't mean less content, it means easy to understand and use content. 3.5 problems wasn't that it wasn't streamlined it was that they published content too fast, which cause some streamlining problems but mostly just made dozens of overlapping ideas and some really bad unplay-tested things.

I agree with the idea of both designing classes with more internal options to chose from (battlemaster manoeuvres, warlock invocations, fighting styles, spells etc.) and releasing more of them.

And yes, I like ACFs in general.

I am not sure that some of these options are untested - but I think that some of the testing has been done poorly. I.e. testing a new option in a party alongside an old option to see the extent to which it a) brings enough new to the table and b) doesnt overshadow or conflict with the old class.

[stoutstien]

I'm a fan of alternative class features as well but I can see the hesitation
some people have because it's one area where PC options has historically been that new is always better. I can count a least 4 subclasses that would work better as alternative features instead of trying to be complete option in thier own right. Even then I don't think we are at risk of subclass bloat yet out side of wizards and the druids which IMO struggle to be a class to begin with.

Race bloat is more annoying and talk about a prime spot for alternative features rather than just more for the sake of more.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Race bloat is more annoying and talk about a prime spot for alternative features rather than just more for the sake of more.

If I were to rank content types for power creep/bloatiness, I'd probably do it like this:

Low risk:
1. New monsters of non-beast type. DM only, generally. No risk to intra-party balance.
2. New subclasses. Because if you only get one (or maybe 2), the interactions are minimal. So you can do things with these that you couldn't do with a more mix-and-match system.

Medium risk:
3. New items. With a DM in control, these aren't so bad (but can get out of hand pretty fast with open access).
4. New feats. Much more of a risk. People start building their builds around these.
5. new races. Not so much for power creep, but for bloat. IMO, they should only publish setting specific races from here on. With the expectation that not all the PHB races are everywhere.
5.5 new beast-type monsters. Slight power creep for druids and polymorph.

High risk:
6. new classes. Here you get substantial interaction concerns.
7. new spells. This is a key power creep. Because every time you publish a new spell, all the spellcasters capabilities go up instantly and asynchronously. Especially "whole list" casters.
8. Anything that allows mix-and-match (ACFs, etc). Because then you have a combinatoric explosion of concerns. I'm a bit less concerned about variants that simply replace one set of features with a pre-defined alternate set, however.

As for pure bloat, the issue comes in when the field is full enough that any new option has a directly comparable old option. Because then you get
1. New strictly better than old --> old is now invalidated. I'd say some of the ranger options came darn close here, and some of the new sorcerer ones are pretty close.
2. New strictly worse than old --> why did you print it?

In either case, you've got a trap option. And I hate trap options.

[stoutstien]

I will say 5e has very minimum trap options which is nice. You have to actively try to deadend a PC and could still be highly effective. Hurray for high floor designs.

[MrStabby]

If I were to rank content types for power creep/bloatiness, I'd probably do it like this:

Low risk:
1. New monsters of non-beast type. DM only, generally. No risk to intra-party balance.
2. New subclasses. Because if you only get one (or maybe 2), the interactions are minimal. So you can do things with these that you couldn't do with a more mix-and-match system.

Medium risk:
3. New items. With a DM in control, these aren't so bad (but can get out of hand pretty fast with open access).
4. New feats. Much more of a risk. People start building their builds around these.
5. new races. Not so much for power creep, but for bloat. IMO, they should only publish setting specific races from here on. With the expectation that not all the PHB races are everywhere.
5.5 new beast-type monsters. Slight power creep for druids and polymorph.

High risk:
6. new classes. Here you get substantial interaction concerns.
7. new spells. This is a key power creep. Because every time you publish a new spell, all the spellcasters capabilities go up instantly and asynchronously. Especially "whole list" casters.
8. Anything that allows mix-and-match (ACFs, etc). Because then you have a combinatoric explosion of concerns. I'm a bit less concerned about variants that simply replace one set of features with a pre-defined alternate set, however.

As for pure bloat, the issue comes in when the field is full enough that any new option has a directly comparable old option. Because then you get
1. New strictly better than old --> old is now invalidated. I'd say some of the ranger options came darn close here, and some of the new sorcerer ones are pretty close.
2. New strictly worse than old --> why did you print it?

In either case, you've got a trap option. And I hate trap options.

I think that I would rate the risk of beast type monsters higher than you did for a few reasons:

1) I think there is some semblance of play-testing for most new player content. We can complain it isn't enough but there is soemthing that goes on. I am not sure monster manual content is checked so thoroughly. So the probabiliy of something bad slipping through is higher.
2) The classes that get polymorph on their spell list are already tending to be the most powerful in the game so there is less headroom before they become a problem... compared to say the risk of a new fighting style.
3) These give up nothing for the option. At least any new spell requires you to have one fewer other spell prepared for what it offers. This just straight adds another option
4) The flexability risk is huge - the potential stuff a beast could do but doesn't is big. There is a lot of space here.
5) There is a risk that someone might consider it a good plan to release higher CR beasts.
6) There is risk to wildshape, conjure animals AND polymorph - potentially three effects on a single character from a change that look innocuous
7) Since the MM got released there are more support options for beasts if the same MM mentality is used the impact of shepherd druids and twighlight clerics might be neglected.

There are similar arguments for most things that can be summoned, but beasts are the worst risk.

[ezekielraiden]

So. We can't add new classes, because that's bloat, and risks redundant options.

Now we can't add new subclasses, the things specifically made to be concept-specific focuses for classes so we wouldn't need to add more classes, because that's bloat, and risks redundant options.

Why not just come out and say, "I don't want supplemental material that adds character options"? Because that's literally what you're saying, just behind a smokescreen of "concerns" and other noncommittal phrasing. If you only want five subclasses per class, or some other arbitrary limit, just say it and be done with it.

[MrStabby]

So. We can't add new classes, because that's bloat, and risks redundant options.

Now we can't add new subclasses, the things specifically made to be concept-specific focuses for classes so we wouldn't need to add more classes, because that's bloat, and risks redundant options.

Why not just come out and say, "I don't want supplemental material that adds character options"? Because that's literally what you're saying, just behind a smokescreen of "concerns" and other noncommittal phrasing. If you only want five subclasses per class, or some other arbitrary limit, just say it and be done with it.

I think pretty much everyone here has mentioned something they would like to see more of? Be it classes , subclasses, feats, fighting styles, ACFs...

[stoutstien]

So. We can't add new classes, because that's bloat, and risks redundant options.

Now we can't add new subclasses, the things specifically made to be concept-specific focuses for classes so we wouldn't need to add more classes, because that's bloat, and risks redundant options.

Why not just come out and say, "I don't want supplemental material that adds character options"? Because that's literally what you're saying, just behind a smokescreen of "concerns" and other noncommittal phrasing. If you only want five subclasses per class, or some other arbitrary limit, just say it and be done with it.

Bloat is any added option that doesn't necessarily add any real value to the game. Sometimes it's not the new contents fault when some options are just so flexible so the new content need really strong theatrical elements to shine. Wizards are a good example here. I could see plenty of new subclass ideas but they need powerful setting ties not a bunch of new crunchy parts.

I'm on board for new classes as long as they spend as much time play testing as they did the arty. I'm not 100% satisfied with it but it is well balanced for as many new mechanics it has.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

I guess I'm echoing some ideas already touched on, but it does seem as though subclass 'bloat' or just the trend towards too many subclasses is necessitated by the design philosophy of minimizing the addition of new classes. In 5e, it's like the designers are construction workers who don't have permission from the zoning board to make any new buildings (new classes), so they just have to make the buildings they already have taller (new subclasses). It's mainly up to personal opinion whether this form is preferable, as some people may be quite content with the classes that are currently in place, or otherwise have their tastes satiated by the new additions.

Personally, I would want more classes, though that might be because I've gotten somewhat used to the general play style of the current ones and would want some variety that isn't just window dressing. Of course, that itself may just be due to discontent with the snails pace WotC prefer to go at when it comes to 5e books, but I do think there is room for yet unexplored class archetypes.

I suppose subclass bloat is better than class bloat, but it is perhaps disingenuous to assume that adding new classes would automatically (or inevitably) result in bloat. Though, again, would one rather prefer a set of content that is controlled to the point that it risks being stale, or a chaotic mess of options where character creation becomes like the wild west (with, perhaps, a higher likelihood of enjoyment)?

[MrStabby]

I used to be a bit against new classes. Then I saw the artificer and was dead against new classes... but since then I have had my view changed.

I hated the artificer, the theme of it, a lot of the mechanics, lack of it's own spells and a few other things.

The artificer still isnt for me and yes I am somewhat saddened that magitech can impose itself on my games, but I wasnt the target for the class. It does appeal to a LOT of people and (other than the alchemist) people seem pretty happy with the realisation (which is quite an achievement for something not overpowered).

The class doesnt really step on anyone elses toes, its mechanics are different and rewarding and, however much I dislike it, it does have it's own thematic identity.

New classes can work and I would be open to more of them especially if they are as well thought through and calibrated as the artificer.

New classes can actually be more robust - if you have an underperforming class you can boost it with new content whereas if you have a subclass that is weak you cant really boost it without boosting all the other subclasses that might be strong. For example if the artificer was weak as a class you could add more infusion options in splat, or add more spells. If something like a warlock subclass were to be underpowered (cough... undying... cough cough) then if you try making it better by adding class options like new invocations then you need something quite contrived to only boost that subclass.

[sophontteks]

Which ties back into my main concern - new subclasses don't expand your options, they replace your options.

Giving you more options is expanding your options. I think you'd need to expand upon this a little. Are you saying the new options are superior or something?

If you are worried about powercreep, I don't think the new options really made the old choices irrelevant. In many cases it made them better. The only definitive powercreep I see is the tashas sorcerers, and even then I feel like the new subclasses made the sorcerer more accessible to players. The old sorcerer sublcasses aren't very friendly to casual players.

Battlemaster has new options and remains a great fighter subclass.
Beastmaster was fixed.
Totem Barb remains one of the best barbarian subclasses.

Most of the duds were the same duds we had since the beginning. Like champion. It's just a bad subclass. Same with Berserker. It's be great if they fox these subclasses in new releases.

[PhoenixPhyre]

New classes can actually be more robust - if you have an underperforming class you can boost it with new content whereas if you have a subclass that is weak you cant really boost it without boosting all the other subclasses that might be strong. For example if the artificer was weak as a class you could add more infusion options in splat, or add more spells. If something like a warlock subclass were to be underpowered (cough... undying... cough cough) then if you try making it better by adding class options like new invocations then you need something quite contrived to only boost that subclass.

The issue with that is that WotC has made somewhat of a policy that new material doesn't assume that other, non-core material is present. So a class published in Random's Book of Stuff can't really get explicit support outside that book. Or at least it's more difficult than adding new material for core classes.

And personally, that policy is great (although sometimes frustrating). If book A assumes you have (non-core) book B in order to use most of its features, that's an issue. Plus that's a great way to get bloat and unforseen interactions. There's a reason they've reprinted stuff that only occurred in setting books before--so that they could add more support without running that risk.

[JonBeowulf]

I'm going full pragmatist here and say they got to publish something so we'll buy something so they can keep the train moving. It doesn't really matter what is being added because they gotta add SOMETHING.

Personally, I'd like to see a full-on variant sorcerer class and more fluff (and crunch) for warlock patrons.

[stoutstien]

One of the reasons I like the general mechanical idea of warlocks having 2 subclass options and the free form of invocations is it allows more room for adjustment compared to the the binary class/subclass style of design. Lots of room to add content. I'm kinda disappointed in the fact they haven't capitalized on this angle more.

One of the reasons I think the artificer is seen as such a good design(flavor aside) is it mimics that open ended customization and while they only have one subclass pathway they have complex party interactions to work with.

[MrStabby]

The issue with that is that WotC has made somewhat of a policy that new material doesn't assume that other, non-core material is present. So a class published in Random's Book of Stuff can't really get explicit support outside that book. Or at least it's more difficult than adding new material for core classes.

And personally, that policy is great (although sometimes frustrating). If book A assumes you have (non-core) book B in order to use most of its features, that's an issue. Plus that's a great way to get bloat and unforseen interactions. There's a reason they've reprinted stuff that only occurred in setting books before--so that they could add more support without running that risk.

Yeah, a good point. It leads to things like Tasha'needing to reprint core artificer to include a new subclass.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, a good point. It leads to things like Tasha'needing to reprint core artificer to include a new subclass.

Artificer wasn't core before. It still isn't. It used to be a setting-specific class (like bladesinger was as a subclass). Now it's promoted to a splat book, but not setting tied class.

And still, the next book can't include options tied directly to artificer without pain and being a waste/confusing to those who don't own Tasha.

[stoutstien]

Yeah, a good point. It leads to things like Tasha'needing to reprint core artificer to include a new subclass.

The artificer reprint did have some big changes from clarifying wording and making the action choice and scaling of the homunclus/steel defender cleaner to making the infusions less eberron dependent.

The homunclus being a second level infusion is a big change as well.

Proof that reprints are possible in 5e without the sky falling.

[MrStabby]

Artificer wasn't core before. It still isn't. It used to be a setting-specific class (like bladesinger was as a subclass). Now it's promoted to a splat book, but not setting tied class.

And still, the next book can't include options tied directly to artificer without pain and being a waste/confusing to those who don't own Tasha.

Yeah, sorry. Poor choice of words. By "core" I was meaning the class rather than subclass options.

I.e. in order to add a subclass in Tasha's they needed to reprint artificer.

[Pex]

I'm not so sure if an old Thing becoming obsolete is a bad thing. I get you don't want More POWR! to win D&D, but something being strictly better isn't inherently a bad thing. It would help if WOTC admitted a new subclass is intended to replace an old subclass for reasons. It's possible old ideas that used to work don't work anymore or there's a way to do it better or it didn't work in the first place. Why should it bother a DM if, as an example, no one ever plays a Champion again? If players don't like a subclass they don't like it, and there's nothing wrong with not liking it. It's not the DM's job to make players play it.

[Tanarii]

Replacing instead of enhancing is not only fine, it's the design working as intended.

The concern should be:
- subclass power creep, not subclass bloat. (E.g. Hexblade in Xanathars)
- other class feature replacement power creep (e.g. many replacement features in Tasha's)
- free "optional" class features (e.g. all non-replacement features and expanded spell lists in Tasha's)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not so sure if an old Thing becoming obsolete is a bad thing. I get you don't want More POWR! to win D&D, but something being strictly better isn't inherently a bad thing. It would help if WOTC admitted a new subclass is intended to replace an old subclass for reasons. It's possible old ideas that used to work don't work anymore or there's a way to do it better or it didn't work in the first place. Why should it bother a DM if, as an example, no one ever plays a Champion again? If players don't like a subclass they don't like it, and there's nothing wrong with not liking it. It's not the DM's job to make players play it.

Because then you've got a trap option. And you've got the bad pay to win scenario: later books invalidate earlier ones, so you have to chase the treadmill to keep up. No thanks.

[stoutstien]

Because then you've got a trap option. And you've got the bad pay to win scenario: later books invalidate earlier ones, so you have to chase the treadmill to keep up. No thanks.

This is unavoidable to some degree unless a game is released in it's entity and never augmented or a game goes really heavy in setting specific material so you are dealing with a more simple base game with a bunch of different overlays. 5e is sort of the latter even if it fails to come out and says it.

[Lord Raziere]

Its an unfortunate part of DnD's "kinda-sorta flavorful" design choices. they make class options are halfway between being generic and being flavorful. this is because generally when designing options in an rpg you either go one of two routes:
1. you make everything so generic and flavorless that you can literally put any flavor on it and have it work, not attaching any descriptive fluff to it whatsoever

2. you design for the setting specifically and define options that only apply and have place within that setting, with in-setting explanation for all of them.

with DnD you don't get either. its semi-generic nature of having multiple settings means it can't fully go the 2 route because any of these options might get used in another setting. but they can't fully go the 1 route because its DnD and they must keep its identity as DnD distinct.

thus there is no actual logic for how subclasses, classes or anything get made and designed. if it was completely generic you could just forget the fluff and design purely mechanical subclasses that anyone could put anything they want on there and you could stop very soon as all the roles you'd want would be mechanically covered and you could leave people to do whatever they want with those.

While if it was completely setting based all the choices would be grounded in setting logic, thus any addition would be to fill it in, while not really allowing any room to refluff because the point would be to simulate being that thing specifically so you don't deviate from the fluff and do something else with it, thus necessitating options to specifically emulate another thing since you wouldn't be able to do that, unless you specifically build from the ground up to be that and fit it into the setting.

the way DnD does however is that provides some fluff that kinda is flavor, kinda explains what it is.....but always incredibly brief and general, making it shallow sort of fluff that is often unconnected anything else in the world with no real explanation as to how it fits into anything else. meaning you can kind of refluff it, but not fully. you can kind of try to take it as fluff to extrapolate on and embody in a more full form but you always end up having your own interpretation anyways, even though you can't truly change it. making it kind of frustrating in its wishy-washiness. you don't know fully what you can or can't refluff, because if you did, you won't need anymore options, because you can just refluff existing ones.

Worse, I think this half-hearted flavor choice is intentional so that WotC can make you keep buying books, not committing to simulation or mechanical purity, they keep the setting scope as wide as possible without providing you all the options to explore the possibilities on your own:
-If they committed to simulation and fluff that would drastically limit the setting you could play thus appealing to only a few fans at the expense of all the others. Fans would have to wait a long time to get their options to specifically play this or that. (for example you'd have a Forgotten Realms splatbook for Forgotten Realms ONLY classes and options only good for gaming in Forgotten Realms, none of which would make sense in say Eberron, which would need its only Eberron-only classes, including Eberron-only fighters and rogues and thus you wouldn't be able to play in eberron until Forgotten Realms was done first, unlike the current set up where the shallow fluff means you can easily play in one or the other without need specific things for them)
-If they committed to bland mechanical purity you'd only need a few books to as efficiently provide all the options you could possibly want to play DnD- lack of fluff would be your problem, this might turn off people who like flavor descriptions of things in books but more importantly it would mean the edition would be complete, and thus nothing would be left to sell as you would have all the options you could ever imagine in maybe three books max.

Thus WotC doesn't care about "bloat". They want you to buy more books, and since everyone loves character options, thats what they make. 5/6 people at the table are going to be players after all, so they're appealing to a majority of their fanbase because the game is designed that way. they don't care about DMs, by design they're in the minority.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Because then you've got a trap option. And you've got the bad pay to win scenario: later books invalidate earlier ones, so you have to chase the treadmill to keep up. No thanks.

I can understand it being kind of lamentable that some options may be entirely eclipsed as new content is released, leading to the previous iterations seeming like a waste of effort or lost potential, but I don't really understand it as representative of things being "pay to win".

The game isn't really competitive, outside of some competition within optimization, as there aren't any strong instances of PvP, so having to 'compare' characters in terms of power level doesn't show up frequently (at least during play). Neither is the game played in a vacuum. You play at a table (or similar equivalent) with a few other people, as well as a referee, which can immediately veto mechanics if they seem broken or unfun. It's not really an MMO where you can solo for hours and pay for boosts/items/rewards. The DM controls the XP, the challenges, and the loot, so having a character be somewhat stronger than the others can be mitigated by a multitude of factors.

If stuff is released that does power-creep earlier content (which, if it does, is not likely to power-creep it to great extents, even among optimization circles), then it really won't be too hard to find it in this digital age. People will post screencaps of the book pages online, or it'll be available on Beyond, or show up in full on some forum post, or show up on one of the hundred other online resources for 5e. There is no real case where a person would be pressured to keep buying entire books solely for content relating to character creation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is unavoidable to some degree unless a game is released in it's entity and never augmented or a game goes really heavy in setting specific material so you are dealing with a more simple base game with a bunch of different overlays. 5e is sort of the latter even if it fails to come out and says it.

And IMO, the second is absolutely the right way of doing it. But I'm heavily biased toward setting-consonance over "giving everyone options". I want each and every option to be crafted to fit the setting. In general, this means giving way more guidelines and expecting those who make their own to implement them.

Artificers are an Eberron thing. They shouldn't be presumed elsewhere, and if they occur elsewhere they should be changed to match the setting they're in. Subclasses make a great way of doing this setting-customization. Because most of the base classes are generic enough to fit in most places, while you can put real customization into subclasses. Except that some classes have so much power in their base class (wizards, I'm looking at you) that there isn't anything left for the subclasses beyond ribbons.


I can understand it being kind of lamentable that some options may be entirely eclipsed as new content is released, leading to the previous iterations seeming like a waste of effort or lost potential, but I don't really understand it as representative of things being "pay to win".

The game isn't really competitive, outside of some competition within optimization, as there aren't any strong instances of PvP, so having to 'compare' characters in terms of power level doesn't show up frequently (at least during play). Neither is the game played in a vacuum. You play at a table (or similar equivalent) with a few other people, as well as a referee, which can immediately veto mechanics if they seem broken or unfun. It's not really an MMO where you can solo for hours and pay for boosts/items/rewards. The DM controls the XP, the challenges, and the loot, so having a character be somewhat stronger than the others can be mitigated by a multitude of factors.

If stuff is released that does power-creep earlier content (which, if it does, is not likely to power-creep it to great extents, even among optimization circles), then it really won't be too hard to find it in this digital age. People will post screencaps of the book pages online, or it'll be available on Beyond, or show up in full on some forum post, or show up on one of the hundred other online resources for 5e. There is no real case where a person would be pressured to keep buying entire books solely for content relating to character creation.

Except that unless you can have an entire table who agrees to keep it to certain sources, this gets out of hand real fast. And we all saw what happened when Tasha's was released with its (IMO) poor balance--it immediately got assumed as the new baseline and anyone who disagreed was bad. So power-creep is competitive, because optimization is an arms race. As soon as one person comes with something above the curve, now the DM has to bend to them. Which means they get a disproportionate share of the spotlight. Or feels unfairly singled out.

IMO, games should decide what their baseline is and hew strictly to that. If new content comes out that obviates the old, then actually cut the old out. Errata it out. Or, better, don't publish that new material at all. Does that mean you'd have less material? Sure. But that's not bad. Meta-chasing is a cancer.

[KyleG]

I would prefer more subclass/even class options to choose BETWEEN. The only real choices are spells and fighting styles. Let me choose more!

[quinron]

I would prefer more subclass/even class options to choose BETWEEN. The only real choices are spells and fighting styles. Let me choose more!

After reading through and considering the responses so far, this is probably a better encapsulation of what my actual frustration has turned out to be. A greater proportion of non-casters' capabilities are therefore derived from their subclasses, but we're still seeing casters being given as many or more subclasses than non-casters PLUS massive lists of new spells.

And I'd still like to see more customization possibilities for non-casters, though I admit that it probably cuts against the apparent "streamline & simplify" philosophy of the edition. That's just my personal preference.

[MrStabby]

After reading through and considering the responses so far, this is probably a better encapsulation of what my actual frustration has turned out to be. A greater proportion of non-casters' capabilities are therefore derived from their subclasses, but we're still seeing casters being given as many or more subclasses than non-casters PLUS massive lists of new spells.

And I'd still like to see more customization possibilities for non-casters, though I admit that it probably cuts against the apparent "streamline & simplify" philosophy of the edition. That's just my personal preference.

I would argue that non-casters big differentiators are as much feats (where allowed) as they are subclasses. Even for rangers, who have powerful subclasses, the difference between a two weapon fighter ranger and a sharpshooter ranger is bigger in practice than the difference between a Horizon Walker and a Hunter.

Sure, casters get the same number of feats but most levels.ofnplay will see a stat.increase and a feat.to help pass concentration saves more than something character defining.

[Tanarii]

And we all saw what happened when Tasha's was released with its (IMO) poor balance--it immediately got assumed as the new baseline and anyone who disagreed was bad.
What was (and is) hilarious is the people that claim this won't or doesn't happen.

At a given table, it might not. Or it might cause a campaign revolt. I'm going to find out because when stores reopen my campaign rule is going to be "no Tasha's".

But the greater community just seems to assume any officially published content is good to go as a standard use scenario.

[Pex]

And IMO, the second is absolutely the right way of doing it. But I'm heavily biased toward setting-consonance over "giving everyone options". I want each and every option to be crafted to fit the setting. In general, this means giving way more guidelines and expecting those who make their own to implement them.

Artificers are an Eberron thing. They shouldn't be presumed elsewhere, and if they occur elsewhere they should be changed to match the setting they're in. Subclasses make a great way of doing this setting-customization. Because most of the base classes are generic enough to fit in most places, while you can put real customization into subclasses. Except that some classes have so much power in their base class (wizards, I'm looking at you) that there isn't anything left for the subclasses beyond ribbons.



I agree with the old discussion point that no one is bad for not liking the Tasha book and not using it. However, you're not being fair to those who do like the Tasha book and want to use it that you resent having to ban the Tasha book in your game wishing it never existed at all to deprive others from using it. No one can make you use the Ubermench Fighter that makes Champion Fighter obsolete, but that doesn't mean those who like and want to use the Ubermench Fighter and never use the Champion Fighter again are doing anything wrong. Still, you did answer my question.

[stoutstien]

I agree with the old discussion point that no one is bad for not liking the Tasha book and not using it. However, you're not being fair to those who do like the Tasha book and want to use it that you resent having to ban the Tasha book in your game wishing it never existed at all to deprive others from using it. No one can make you use the Ubermench Fighter that makes Champion Fighter obsolete, but that doesn't mean those who like and want to use the Ubermench Fighter and never use the Champion Fighter again are doing anything wrong. Still, you did answer my question.

You can't ban tasha because 5e is an "opt in" format.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree with the old discussion point that no one is bad for not liking the Tasha book and not using it. However, you're not being fair to those who do like the Tasha book and want to use it that you resent having to ban the Tasha book in your game wishing it never existed at all to deprive others from using it. No one can make you use the Ubermench Fighter that makes Champion Fighter obsolete, but that doesn't mean those who like and want to use the Ubermench Fighter and never use the Champion Fighter again are doing anything wrong. Still, you did answer my question.

I actually allow (most) of Tasha's. But I also have very firm controls over what gets played by talking with people individually about their characters. And have a very low balance point and don't push difficulty. And have absolutely no compunction about telling someone "no, that doesn't fit the party. Find something else" when they show up with something well outside the power band in either direction.

But I detest having printed material that is pointless. It's not only a waste of everyone's time and effort, but a barrier to new players who have to go splat diving to get "acceptable" characters. I saw in in 3e. I saw it in 4e. And I'll be buried in the Nine Hells before I let it infect my games. And I'd prefer strongly that WotC doesn't fall prey to that same stupid thing again, as much as I'm resigned to its inevitability.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Except that unless you can have an entire table who agrees to keep it to certain sources, this gets out of hand real fast. And we all saw what happened when Tasha's was released with its (IMO) poor balance--it immediately got assumed as the new baseline and anyone who disagreed was bad. So power-creep is competitive, because optimization is an arms race. As soon as one person comes with something above the curve, now the DM has to bend to them. Which means they get a disproportionate share of the spotlight. Or feels unfairly singled out.

IMO, games should decide what their baseline is and hew strictly to that. If new content comes out that obviates the old, then actually cut the old out. Errata it out. Or, better, don't publish that new material at all. Does that mean you'd have less material? Sure. But that's not bad. Meta-chasing is a cancer.

I mean, I think that optimization as it stands is overblown in terms of how big of an issue it might be. There are numerous checkpoints/ceilings to character power before it really becomes a problem. And honestly, if the table can't come to an agreement over being gentlemanly and toning things down, then it is entirely possible that the table would not "jive" well in the first place. And I think the assumption is that every new release is the "new baseline", in the sense that players generally (and justifiably) expect that they can play with the new toys when they're released. This goes for anything, not just character options or new rules.

It's perhaps a bit too restrictive to attempt to cap the power level of designing new content, especially since the concept of balance is very abstract. I don't think the developers should be forced to walk a tightrope whenever they want to add something cool or iterative, especially since designers may often change their mind, or may have different ideas on what is balanced than the general player base. Why force limitations to player choice and freedom for the sake of preventing even the concept of a "bad" option from existing in the game or in game discussion?

Of course, I agree with you somewhat, though in the opposite way. I think that there is some material that just shouldn't be published, but mainly in the case of it being weak or boring or same-y. Since I don't think that there will be ways of fully eclipsing the PHB classes/options anytime soon, so there's a lot more risk of creating underpowered options than overpowered options.

[Kane0]

Half a dozen subclasses for each class is fine by me. I find that once you go past that you tend to start doubling up or getting too specific

[Tanarii]

I mean, I think that optimization as it stands is overblown in terms of how big of an issue it might be. There are numerous checkpoints/ceilings to character power before it really becomes a problem. And honestly, if the table can't come to an agreement over being gentlemanly and toning things down, then it is entirely possible that the table would not "jive" well in the first place. And I think the assumption is that every new release is the "new baseline", in the sense that players generally (and justifiably) expect that they can play with the new toys when they're released. This goes for anything, not just character options or new rules.Open tables need global rules for all players. And having to play test and green-light new content is a royal pain, let me tell you.

Closed tables the player just gets to pressure the DM to play something new, and if the DM hasn't seen it yet they're probably not going to know how out of line something is until it's far into a campaign.

It's not reasonable or justifiable at all for a player to generally expect to use new content after it's been released. That assumption is exactly the problem. That's the reason DMs face pressure to allow badly designed content into their games in the first place.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Open tables need global rules for all players. And having to play test and green-light new content is a royal pain, let me tell you.

Closed tables the player just gets to pressure the DM to play something new, and if the DM hasn't seen it yet they're probably not going to know how out of line something is until it's far into a campaign.

It's not reasonable or justifiable at all for a player to generally expect to use new content after it's been released. That assumption is exactly the problem. That's the reason DMs face pressure to allow badly designed content into their games in the first place.

And to add to this reply, which I support, there's also setting conformance. Which in my opinion ranks really darn high. Sorry, you're not going to play a gunslinger in my world. Period. Don't care what gets published for it. There are no firearms. Same goes for a bunch of races. And if they do exist, their lore (at a minimum) will be quite different.

[Jerrykhor]

And to add to this reply, which I support, there's also setting conformance. Which in my opinion ranks really darn high. Sorry, you're not going to play a gunslinger in my world. Period. Don't care what gets published for it. There are no firearms. Same goes for a bunch of races. And if they do exist, their lore (at a minimum) will be quite different.

The difference is that Gunslinger is not official, unlike Artificer.

There's new content, and there's OFFICIAL new content. Players generally expect official content to be on the table.

[x3n0n]

The difference is that Gunslinger is not official, unlike Artificer.

There's new content, and there's OFFICIAL new content. Players generally expect official content to be on the table.

I think that may be a reference to the Gunner feat, which is official in Tasha's.

[stoutstien]

I think that may be a reference to the Gunner feat, which is official in Tasha's.

Was an odd place to put it rather than next to the guns themselves in the DMG. OTOH much like CBE it has 2 bullets that are universally useful so it's comparing a BA attack with a certain weapon load out or +1 Dex.

[KorvinStarmast]

With the release of Tasha's, I'm starting to worry that subclass bloat is going to be a real problem going forward (if it isn't already one now). It is and it was. Thankfully, some of it was headed off at the pass during UA critiques.
Which ties back into my main concern - new subclasses don't expand your options, they replace your options. Yes.

Problem is, in the now-firmly-established idiom that 5e's created, I don't know how one might go about fixing or at least tempering this. I am not sure that it needs fixing. Most cases where a desire for more features arises can be handled via Multi Classing (if that option is open at the table).

The things you need to check for balance grows with the number of subclasses. The number of combinations explodes with the number of subclasses/options that can be combined.

By creating new content that doesnt interact strongly they avoid this. That's a good point.
I think that different races are more bloated than classes. Likewise.

Subclass bloat is fine for me...It's order of magnitude better than class bloat...DM-side, subclass bloat is probably the least threatening out of all the player-content-bloats. Good analysis.
If I were to rank content types for power creep/bloatiness, I'd probably do it like this:
Low risk:
1. New monsters of non-beast type. DM only, generally. No risk to intra-party balance.
2. New subclasses. Because if you only get one (or maybe 2), the interactions are minimal. So you can do things with these that you couldn't do with a more mix-and-match system.
Medium risk:
3. New items. With a DM in control, these aren't so bad (but can get out of hand pretty fast with open access).
4. New feats. Much more of a risk. People start building their builds around these.
5. New races. Not so much for power creep, but for bloat. IMO, they should only publish setting specific races from here on. With the expectation that not all the PHB races are everywhere.
5.5 new beast-type monsters. Slight power creep for druids and polymorph.
High risk:
6. New classes. Here you get substantial interaction concerns.
7. New spells. This is a key power creep. Because every time you publish a new spell, all the spellcasters capabilities go up instantly and asynchronously. Especially "whole list" casters.
8. Anything that allows mix-and-match (ACFs, etc). Because then you have a combinatoric explosion of concerns. I'm a bit less concerned about variants that simply replace one set of features with a pre-defined alternate set, however.
---
1. New strictly better than old --> old is now invalidated. I'd say some of the ranger options came darn close here, and some of the new sorcerer ones are pretty close.
2. New strictly worse than old --> why did you print it? I am keeping this for future reference; I think you've got a good grip on the varying scale of the problem.

Artificer wasn't core before. It still isn't. It used to be a setting-specific class (like bladesinger was as a subclass). Now it's promoted to a splat book, but not setting tied class. And still, the next book can't include options tied directly to artificer without pain and being a waste/confusing to those who don't own Tasha.

Half a dozen subclasses for each class is fine by me. I find that once you go past that you tend to start doubling up or getting too specific Inquisitive rogue, for one, seems to be of marginal value to me.

Open tables need global rules for all players. And having to play test and green-light new content is a royal pain, let me tell you. It's not reasonable or justifiable at all for a player to generally expect to use new content after it's been released. That assumption is exactly the problem. That's the reason DMs face pressure to allow badly designed content into their games in the first place. This has been going on for longer than this edition. :smallcool: And it's why I was leary about the artificer request by a player (which I approved) back when it was UA. We updated it to E:RftLW, but I am only happy that the player has is since it's someone I've played with for a number of years. I doubt I'll ever green light one again unless I really get into Eberron and choose to DM that setting. Odds against that are small, since my time is finite.

[stoutstien]

I am not sure that it needs fixing. Most cases where a desire for more features arises can be handled via Multi Classing (if that option is open at the table).

IMO I don't think multi-classing should be used as an argument against additional player options being added. The rules governing the restrictions of multi-classing was, at best shot, from the hip and is definitely not considered when judging the balance of new material from WoLC.

new material should be based on the assumption that they are used as a standalone option in a non-feat/multi-class game. If it's fine then but gets a little wonky when you start adding in the two big optional rule sets the fault shouldn't fall on the new material.

[KorvinStarmast]

IMO I don't think multi-classing should be used as an argument against additional player options being added. The rules governing the restrictions of multi-classing was, at best shot, from the hip and is definitely not considered when judging the balance of new material from WoLC.

new material should be based on the assumption that they are used as a standalone option in a non-feat/multi-class game. If it's fine then but gets a little wonky when you start adding in the two big optional rule sets the fault shouldn't fall on the new material. Good thoughts, though most classes and sub classes are front loaded.

[Waazraath]

My 2 cents:

At this point in the edition, I think we have enough to subclasses to choose from. By now every class has a wide variety of options to build different kind of characters that fall under the same (class) archetypes. Even a class like monk, who after the release of 5e got the critique that 'after a few games, all monks seem a bit alike' now can widely customize them, with more subclasses and Tasha's alternative features.

I've nothing against adding more subclasses, but we don't really need more. If anything, I'd like to see only a few thematic ones when a new setting gets released.

As for other features: we have plenty of races, maybe even too much compared to other featrues. Same as with subclasses, I wouldn't mind adding thematic ones in new settings, but no urgency for more.

What we do need imo, or maybe not need but what would make the game more fun, is adding more feats, fighting styles, invocations, metamagic options, totem/storm herald features, 4 element monk options etc: all those little options you can pick when making a character, which are rather limited in scope but which can be used to make your character more unique. In addition, more alternative class features are very welcome. From 'big' (I'd love a spell-less variant of the Ranger and Paladin that takes away spells but gives other features in return) to small (replace a small feature with another small feature).

Finally, we could use a few new classes. No worries if they are part of a new setting, like the Artificer. Buy now, most regular players will have seen all classes in action several times, since 5e came out, and some fresh air is welcome. Also plenty of inspiration in older editions (binders, martial adepts, warlords, classes whose main feature is shape shifting... you name 'em).

The least thing we need are more spells. Plenty to choose from already, and difficult to balance.

[mistajames]

This is just the inevitable cause of an aging edition. The original mission statement was that the edition should be streamlined and easy to pick up, but as people became increasingly familiar with the rules, they want more complexity (the benefits of "simplicity" are felt most acutely by new players).

This is the 7th year of 5th. 6th is presumably coming in the foreseeable future. Old players want more options for their games. If WOTC doesn't release new options, players will increasingly resort to homebrew and WOTC will lose out on potential revenue from book sales. Option bloat is going to happen.

[Morty]

After reading through and considering the responses so far, this is probably a better encapsulation of what my actual frustration has turned out to be. A greater proportion of non-casters' capabilities are therefore derived from their subclasses, but we're still seeing casters being given as many or more subclasses than non-casters PLUS massive lists of new spells.

And I'd still like to see more customization possibilities for non-casters, though I admit that it probably cuts against the apparent "streamline & simplify" philosophy of the edition. That's just my personal preference.

There's an element of adding new content to an edition that was deliberately simplified, yeah. Simplicity can be a double-edged sword. And it did end up with a situation where for many classes, the space for new content is limited.


IMO I don't think multi-classing should be used as an argument against additional player options being added. The rules governing the restrictions of multi-classing was, at best shot, from the hip and is definitely not considered when judging the balance of new material from WoLC.

new material should be based on the assumption that they are used as a standalone option in a non-feat/multi-class game. If it's fine then but gets a little wonky when you start adding in the two big optional rule sets the fault shouldn't fall on the new material.

I'm generally of the opinion that multiclassing is out of place in 5E and that the game is, on the whole not designed with it in mind.

[Tanarii]

This is the 7th year of 5th. 6th is presumably coming in the foreseeable future. Old players want more options for their games. If WOTC doesn't release new options, players will increasingly resort to homebrew and WOTC will lose out on potential revenue from book sales. Option bloat is going to happen.
My prediction is overall RoI will drop as they increase volume unless they also significantly decrease the price. Unless you've crossed the threshold where the majority of demand is from retaining players over recruiting new players, if you raise the barrier to entry you drive down new players.

MMOs face the same issue with expansions as well, except more so, because expansions are usually required to play.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Open tables need global rules for all players. And having to play test and green-light new content is a royal pain, let me tell you.

Closed tables the player just gets to pressure the DM to play something new, and if the DM hasn't seen it yet they're probably not going to know how out of line something is until it's far into a campaign.

I mean the difference in 'closed' or 'open' tables is a somewhat different topic. If there is to be made a distinction, then it is clear that both sides are operating among different assumptions and expectations when it comes to playing the same game. This can't be rectified solely by how and how much new content is given, but rather that WotC would need a clearer divide between the two in order to keep people happy.

I don't think DMs at 'closed' tables are so powerless that they can't say "no" to their players. I mean, just look at how many people on these forums have strong opinions at where they draw the line with regards to balance :smallbiggrin:. If that is an issue then it likely stretches further than content, and represents an inherent issue in player dynamic.


It's not reasonable or justifiable at all for a player to generally expect to use new content after it's been released. That assumption is exactly the problem. That's the reason DMs face pressure to allow badly designed content into their games in the first place.

I would think it's a consequence of how the game works (and how content is released), as well as the nature of players in general. Books come out sparingly, which results in whatever book that is the "new hotness" dominating discussion and filling the collective player consciousness. Because of this, there is an encouragement to take a look at that which is new, which is coupled with an innate sense of curiosity and wanting to "try things out". And, just in general, players may often find themselves wanting to pick from a lot of different books (not just new ones) in order to satisfy a certain character concept - as they should, since one of the appeals of TTRPGs is the open-ended nature of character creation and character freedom.

[StoneSeraph]

My prediction is overall RoI will drop as they increase volume unless they also significantly decrease the price. Unless you've crossed the threshold where the majority of demand is from retaining players over recruiting new players, if you raise the barrier to entry you drive down new players.

MMOs face the same issue with expansions as well, except more so, because expansions are usually required to play.

"This expansion is required to play" already exists for 5e; case in point: Tasha's. We've reached a point where "If you don't use this book or the rules within, then you're an evil person" is considered acceptable thinking by a not-insignificant portion of the playerbase. For those DM's who don't cast power word no, the behavior that comes from that portion of the playerbase is enough impetus for them to buy the book de jour, if only to avoid the unpleasantness.

But of course, all those rules are optional... until you choose not to use them, at which point, how dare you.

Perhaps this is too cynical, but I'd say WotC has a very strong understanding of this and isn't afraid to move forward with respect to profit by peer pressure.

[paladinn]

"Power Word: No" - I love that.. lol

I don't think "subclass bloat" is a problem going forward; it's a problem Now. We're at a point where Every class has to have subclass options that "borrow" features from every other class, and from some other subclasses. So if the next book introduces a new class, there will need to be a subclass for each other class to borrow some of the new features.

This really is a problem; it's 5e's equivalent of 3x's "feat bloat". I get that WotC has been wanting to limit multi-classing, but it's getting out of control. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'd almost prefer 4e's model of just borrowing other classes' features. Almost.

[stoutstien]

"This expansion is required to play" already exists for 5e; case in point: Tasha's. We've reached a point where "If you don't use this book or the rules within, then you're an evil person" is considered acceptable thinking by a not-insignificant portion of the playerbase. For those DM's who don't cast power word no, the behavior that comes from that portion of the playerbase is enough impetus for them to buy the book de jour, if only to avoid the unpleasantness.

But of course, all those rules are optional... until you choose not to use them, at which point, how dare you.

Perhaps this is too cynical, but I'd say WotC has a very strong understanding of this and isn't afraid to move forward with respect to profit by peer pressure.
I haven't seen anyone really take the stance IRL that saying no to Tasha's makes anyone evil. Maybe I'm lucky in that I have purged my group(s) of anyone who can't handle the occasional "no".

This is coming from someone who does thing the FR lore is troublesome.

[mistajames]

I haven't seen anyone really take the stance IRL that saying no to Tasha's makes anyone evil. Maybe I'm lucky in that I have purged my group(s) of anyone who can't handle the occasional "no".

This is coming from someone who does thing the FR lore is troublesome.

Different groups are different. I houserule the game so extensively (and am so open to homebrew/UA) that giving a blanket "no" to a published book (as opposed to particular classes/subclasses) would be kind of ridiculous on my part.

Other groups take a more conservative approach. I don't see this as a problem.

[stoutstien]

Different groups are different. I houserule the game so extensively (and am so open to homebrew/UA) that giving a blanket "no" to a published book (as opposed to particular classes/subclasses) would be kind of ridiculous on my part.

Other groups take a more conservative approach. I don't see this as a problem.

Aye. My games are only 5e in the most loose sense with as many changes I've made but still have to say no for one reason or other or at least yes but with provisional changes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aye. My games are only 5e in the most loose sense with as many changes I've made but still have to say no for one reason or other or at least yes but with provisional changes.


Different groups are different. I houserule the game so extensively (and am so open to homebrew/UA) that giving a blanket "no" to a published book (as opposed to particular classes/subclasses) would be kind of ridiculous on my part.

Other groups take a more conservative approach. I don't see this as a problem.

Whereas I take a pretty "stock" rules approach but have heavily customized the lore and world. Which means that all the things I've said no to are world-based. For instance, no guns (or chemical explosives at all). Stars aren't a major factor and don't really have constellations, so no Stars Druid. And a few other things like that.

[StoneSeraph]

It is kind of sad that 2 pages of Character options cause so much grief.

I know it's in blue, but it's true and it's always been that way from the moment the PHB was released.

It does sort of sound like they're just going to release more material regardless, and since they started out so slow they have plenty of it to draw on. People are going to buy it and they're going to make a tidy profit. I have no doubt they'll reach their goals of doubling profit.

Emphasis mine, because I agree; I didn't mean to come off as if this was some new behavior. After all, running a game without any Feats would likely draw the blue response. That said, in the past, the reaction to such a decision would be "Wow, the DM is kind of a hard-ass", as opposed to "Wow, the DM is a terrible human being".

As far as subclass bloat, the issue seems to be that most of the choice-making is player-facing, not DM-facing. The choices are presented as "here are new ways to play the character you want to play" as opposed to "here are new ideas for you to offer your players, should they care to explore them". All of the language surrounding "optionality" is disingenuous when the players are given carte blanche - when a player rolls up with a Rune Knight/Twilight Cleric, they expect to be able to play that character, because they've been encouraged to believe that they automatically can; and when the DM says "No, you may not play this," the player gets indignant, because they've been led to believe that, once they've made their choice, that nothing could shoot it down.

Outside of closed tables, the idea of "Talk with your DM to make sure your character is right for your table" has been thrown out the window in favor of "The player can do as he likes".

[Kurt Kurageous]

I also wonder if this concern isn't just the system functioning as intended; 5e's initial design ethos was streamlining, which ipso facto means reducing options. I'm still worried about the content bloat, though; I'm foreseeing 3.5 PrC levels of redundant and/or useless subclasses by the time the edition ends.

When I bought TCoE, I called it "the beginning of the end of 5e" for this very reason. Am I just a grognard? The new subclasses seem to always be better, and in some cases have made the base classes obviously inferior choices.

I think the problem may be within the culture of WotC. MTG is all about newer stuff making older stuff useless/non-competitive. It seems MTG people are moving over to 5e and are bringing along that business model.

The other thing is rules bloat. As DM I'm expected to be familiar with all of them and how they interact. XGtE took awhile to integrate, it was too soon for a more complex character creation that TCoE brings. More stuff for me to check to make sure my players are rules compliant...never mind pool AL DMs. They are nearly extinct, and TCoE did nothing to help that.

[JoeJ]

"This expansion is required to play" already exists for 5e; case in point: Tasha's. We've reached a point where "If you don't use this book or the rules within, then you're an evil person" is considered acceptable thinking by a not-insignificant portion of the playerbase. For those DM's who don't cast power word no, the behavior that comes from that portion of the playerbase is enough impetus for them to buy the book de jour, if only to avoid the unpleasantness.

But of course, all those rules are optional... until you choose not to use them, at which point, how dare you.

Perhaps this is too cynical, but I'd say WotC has a very strong understanding of this and isn't afraid to move forward with respect to profit by peer pressure.

That seems to be standard for class-based games; if it's published in an official source, a lot of players assume that it's supposed to be playable in any game. With point-based chargen, there seems to me to be a much greater acceptance of the idea that the GM is supposed to make a decision about what is allowed, and that frequently it won't be everything.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

When I bought TCoE, I called it "the beginning of the end of 5e" for this very reason.

Who says that's a bad thing? :smallamused:

You might be right. Though I'm of the opinion that would probably be more fun for 5e to end in a blaze of bloated glory than an uneventful crawl towards the next edition. There's always going to be a limit to how long an edition can go before it becomes kind of stale.


I think the problem may be within the culture of WotC. MTG is all about newer stuff making older stuff useless/non-competitive. It seems MTG people are moving over to 5e and are bringing along that business model.

This occurs in almost all big games, especially ones that go on for so long. There needs to be things added so people are compelled to keep playing and interacting. This happened in Hearthstone, Yugioh, TF2, League of Legends, and probably a ton of other games I'm not familiar with. Eventually there isn't space to iterate within the confines of current ideas of balance, so the development teams have to toe the line to give new concepts and ideas the space to breathe.


The other thing is rules bloat. As DM I'm expected to be familiar with all of them and how they interact. XGtE took awhile to integrate, it was too soon for a more complex character creation that TCoE brings. More stuff for me to check to make sure my players are rules compliant...never mind pool AL DMs. They are nearly extinct, and TCoE did nothing to help that.

There's rules bloat? :smallconfused:

[stoutstien]

There's rules bloat? :smallconfused:

In someway rule bloat is really the issue. A player wanting to try new material only need to know the limited rules of how it impacts their choices but the DM needs to understand that and also the impact it has at any other point of contact it has with the rest of the game. Anything that can potentially slow a game down is something to be concerned about. Not every DM is neurotic enough to repeatedly read the source books cover to cover multiple times.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That seems to be standard for class-based games; if it's published in an official source, a lot of players assume that it's supposed to be playable in any game. With point-based chargen, there seems to me to be a much greater acceptance of the idea that the GM is supposed to make a decision about what is allowed, and that frequently it won't be everything.

Which, frankly, is mostly because people don't read more than they have to (if even that). And rely on class guides. 5e made a point of saying that the content was optional. Even feats and multiclassing are marked variant, with an explanation of that. Honestly, that's on them. And, a bit, on the DMs who don't set clear expectations in session 0. I've got a "approved sources" section of my basic document and we go over it. And I vet all characters before they start play, and prefer that character creation is done in communication with me. Less for mechanical purposes (other than to preview to me where I need to set power levels, etc) than for thematics and world-fit.

[stoutstien]

Which, frankly, is mostly because people don't read more than they have to (if even that). And rely on class guides. 5e made a point of saying that the content was optional. Even feats and multiclassing are marked variant, with an explanation of that. Honestly, that's on them. And, a bit, on the DMs who don't set clear expectations in session 0. I've got a "approved sources" section of my basic document and we go over it. And I vet all characters before they start play, and prefer that character creation is done in communication with me. Less for mechanical purposes (other than to preview to me where I need to set power levels, etc) than for thematics and world-fit.

Even the PHB says all its content is optional right off the bat on pg 6-7 I forget exactly which.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

In someway rule bloat is really the issue. A player wanting to try new material only need to know the limited rules of how it impacts their choices but the DM needs to understand that and also the impact it has at any other point of contact it has with the rest of the game. Anything that can potentially slow a game down is something to be concerned about. Not every DM is neurotic enough to repeatedly read the source books cover to cover multiple times.

I always thought that the game doesn't really expect the players or DMs to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules and how they interact. Rather, it is assumed that the players can be trusted to follow the rules of their characters/game as best as their abilities allow them, and any point of contention can be solved by a (relatively) quick DM fiat at the moment, which can then be scrutinized once the game is over.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Even the PHB says all its content is optional right off the bat on pg 6-7 I forget exactly which.

Exactly. But that's in the "fluff" section, which no one reads because it's not really rules. I wish I could blue that last sentence, but it's basically fact. Sadly.


I always thought that the game doesn't really expect the players or DMs to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules and how they interact. Rather, it is assumed that the players can be trusted to follow the rules of their characters/game as best as their abilities allow them, and any point of contention can be solved by a (relatively) quick DM fiat at the moment, which can then be scrutinized once the game is over.

That breaks down the more that you have interacting pieces. Or longer games. Because then you're patching a bunch of things ad hoc, when a more systemic fix (usually saying "hey guys, don't do X cause it broken") would work. Or creates patches that themselves cause more problems down the line and set expectations. And the kind of content people are asking for here (feats, spells, classes with new mechanical systems, etc) are the prime offenders for interacting subsystems. Subclasses interact with things outside their class generally a lot less, so they're "safer" in that way.

Ideally, the interacting pieces should be a) minimal and b) explicit. No implicit interactions--no interacting with another piece of content unless it explicitly says it does. You can interact with the base rules, but the inheritance/interaction hierarchy darn well better be shallow and flat.

[stoutstien]

I always thought that the game doesn't really expect the players or DMs to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules and how they interact. Rather, it is assumed that the players can be trusted to follow the rules of their characters/game as best as their abilities allow them, and any point of contention can be solved by a (relatively) quick DM fiat at the moment, which can then be scrutinized once the game is over.

True but even after the "game" is over the time needed to review and adjust is real. The investment of time is still needed and for DM who want consistent rulings that means looking past an single rulings to making rules.

[Pex]

You can't ban tasha because 5e is an "opt in" format.

That's pedantic.


I actually allow (most) of Tasha's. But I also have very firm controls over what gets played by talking with people individually about their characters. And have a very low balance point and don't push difficulty. And have absolutely no compunction about telling someone "no, that doesn't fit the party. Find something else" when they show up with something well outside the power band in either direction.

But I detest having printed material that is pointless. It's not only a waste of everyone's time and effort, but a barrier to new players who have to go splat diving to get "acceptable" characters. I saw in in 3e. I saw it in 4e. And I'll be buried in the Nine Hells before I let it infect my games. And I'd prefer strongly that WotC doesn't fall prey to that same stupid thing again, as much as I'm resigned to its inevitability.

This is a different stance than there shouldn't be new material at all, "bloat". You care about quality, which is a subjective thing (nothing wrong with that) and perhaps something can be objectively bad. I can see the concern of not wanting 5E going down the path of Pathfinder of printing book after book of new material, but it's a far cry to say there should never be new material. You can only hold the hand of pure newbies so much before veterans are too bored and want to leave the game altogether.

When it comes to newbies a DM has a choice. Let them read the PHB and stick with that to let them choose. Alternatively, talk to the player about the type of character he wants to play, and if a fancy new published thing is what suits best let the player use it. He won't know the difference, and the game is not so complicated unless a player willfully chooses not to learn but that's a different topic. It's no more difficult to play an Aberrant Sorcerer or Genie Warlock than it is a Dragon Sorcerer or Fiend Warlock.

Edit: Total agreement that game world setting matters. If X doesn't exist in the gameworld a player cannnot play X, flashy new source book or not. I'm speaking about generic.

[stoutstien]

That's pedantic.

Not if players are are under any impression that any material is automatically assumed to be part of the game when it explicitly is RAW/RAI that it's 100% at the DMs discretion. They have made that point more and more apparent with each book release to the point soon they will probably have to go full Canadian cigarettes with a disclaimer on the face covering 1/2 of it to get this across.

That not a minor miscommunication or small error that can be waved off as pedantic when it's part of the core design philosophy of the game.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

That breaks down the more that you have interacting pieces. Or longer games. Because then you're patching a bunch of things ad hoc, when a more systemic fix (usually saying "hey guys, don't do X cause it broken") would work. Or creates patches that themselves cause more problems down the line and set expectations. And the kind of content people are asking for here (feats, spells, classes with new mechanical systems, etc) are the prime offenders for interacting subsystems. Subclasses interact with things outside their class generally a lot less, so they're "safer" in that way.

Ideally, the interacting pieces should be a) minimal and b) explicit. No implicit interactions--no interacting with another piece of content unless it explicitly says it does. You can interact with the base rules, but the inheritance/interaction hierarchy darn well better be shallow and flat.

Maybe. Things can maybe break down if it becomes a perfect storm where the players become so high maintenance that continual patchwork rulings are required, or the rulings implode in on themselves. But I don't think that is true for most games. I'd like to believe that cool heads prevail and most people, at the end of the day, just want to play the game and will be willing to make concessions to do so, so there is a lot of room to work through these issues.

I think trying to prevent any interacting parts is sort of antithetical to the game itself, since D&D (ideally) puts a lot of focus on choice and open-ended solutions. A philosophy where "X only does what it says it does" isn't very conducive to the kind of intuition and creativity that I believe should be rewarded.

What is the risk of this interaction besides having the DM do a bit of leg work? Is it oppressive mechanical strength? Confusing the players? "Breaking" certain encounters? Are there currently any interactions that are problematic while also not having an accepted solution to solve them?



True but even after the "game" is over the time needed to review and adjust is real. The investment of time is still needed and for DM who want consistent rulings that means looking past an single rulings to making rules.

I think you're overestimating the marginal increase in effort these ruling require, and I don't know if having to make rules is necessarily a bad thing, since it promotes a headspace within the DM that is more conducive towards tailoring a specific experience for the players.

[stoutstien]

The issue is that leg work and extra head space adds up. Quickly. There is a reason DMs are rare and burnouts are common.

[Tanarii]

I think the problem may be within the culture of WotC. MTG is all about newer stuff making older stuff useless/non-competitive. It seems MTG people are moving over to 5e and are bringing along that business model.This is not a WotC thing. Every edition has had this. All the way back to Gary Gygax and the Strategic review.

I don't like it, but it's one reason there are periodic edition "resets" about every 10 years or so. (Not counting how fast the resets came before AD&D.)


Who says that's a bad thing? :smallamused:

You might be right. Though I'm of the opinion that would probably be more fun for 5e to end in a blaze of bloated glory than an uneventful crawl towards the next edition. There's always going to be a limit to how long an edition can go before it becomes kind of stale.Give us a few more years here! :smallamused:

IIRC AD&D (both editions) went 12 years. That's about what I'd like to see for 5e. So wait about 2-3 years before ramping everything up.


Outside of closed tables, the idea of "Talk with your DM to make sure your character is right for your table" has been thrown out the window in favor of "The player can do as he likes".Open tables aren't necessarily official play. Open tables are just tables that let anyone who has access to sign up to sit down or even just sit down, with rotating players at any given session. Closed tables are effective a home group, one group of players running through the campaign. I've participated in open table games from email lists, boards, and most recently gaming stores, all with one or a few rotating DMs.

It's common for open tables to set global character creation rules with restrictions per the DM(s). Even AL does that ... they just choose to have very broad restrictions.


I would think it's a consequence of how the game works (and how content is released), as well as the nature of players in general. Books come out sparingly, which results in whatever book that is the "new hotness" dominating discussion and filling the collective player consciousness. Because of this, there is an encouragement to take a look at that which is new, which is coupled with an innate sense of curiosity and wanting to "try things out". And, just in general, players may often find themselves wanting to pick from a lot of different books (not just new ones) in order to satisfy a certain character concept - as they should, since one of the appeals of TTRPGs is the open-ended nature of character creation and character freedom.Depends on how many veteran players you have vs newer players, how intense they are about the game, and how much money they have to spend.

I've run games out of a game store near a college. I found it was a mix older post-college veterans (including some who checked off all the worst stereotypes), constant turnover of college age players as they found other interests or graduated, and every once in a while a young teen or pre-teen that dragged mom to drive (and play with) them. Very few people with money to spend on things other than the PHB. If that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe. Things can maybe break down if it becomes a perfect storm where the players become so high maintenance that continual patchwork rulings are required, or the rulings implode in on themselves. But I don't think that is true for most games. I'd like to believe that cool heads prevail and most people, at the end of the day, just want to play the game and will be willing to make concessions to do so, so there is a lot of room to work through these issues.

I think trying to prevent any interacting parts is sort of antithetical to the game itself, since D&D (ideally) puts a lot of focus on choice and open-ended solutions. A philosophy where "X only does what it says it does" isn't very conducive to the kind of intuition and creativity that I believe should be rewarded.

What is the risk of this interaction besides having the DM do a bit of leg work? Is it oppressive mechanical strength? Confusing the players? "Breaking" certain encounters? Are there currently any interactions that are problematic while also not having an accepted solution to solve them?




I think you're overestimating the marginal increase in effort these ruling require, and I don't know if having to make rules is necessarily a bad thing, since it promotes a headspace within the DM that is more conducive towards tailoring a specific experience for the players.


The issue is that leg work and extra head space adds up. Quickly. There is a reason DMs are rare and burnouts are common.

Stoutstien is correct. The growth in "things that have to be considered" and things that can break grows faster than linearly with the number of interacting systems. If only pairwise interactions are considered (which is a severe underestimate), it's O(n^2). In the general case, it's O(n^m), where m is the depth of the interactions. And that's horrible. And it doesn't constrain creativity to have non-interacting mechanical systems, because you still have flexibility as to how you apply those pieces and which ones to apply. Frankly, "mechanical" creativity turns into working the DM more than anything else, and that's horrific for new DMs (it turns into basically a form of bullying).

Spells and abilities should only do what they say they do, by default. Anything else should get added by the DM at runtime. 3e ran into this horribly, where any tweak to any part of the system had hundreds of knock-on changes. So 5e explicitly and intentionally went the other way. There are no hidden rules--if it does something, it says it does it.

[MrStabby]

Different groups are different. I houserule the game so extensively (and am so open to homebrew/UA) that giving a blanket "no" to a published book (as opposed to particular classes/subclasses) would be kind of ridiculous on my part.

Other groups take a more conservative approach. I don't see this as a problem.

I am in a similar position and take the opposite approach. Given that the table can homebrew anything you want to play, you should have no need of any particular splat.

Given that it is always possible to homebrew a solution that is more aligned with the desired world than existing options, I find this the better way out.




I think you're overestimating the marginal increase in effort these ruling require, and I don't know if having to make rules is necessarily a bad thing, since it promotes a headspace within the DM that is more conducive towards tailoring a specific experience for the players.

Yeah, it's not hard to do. Not hard to do at all. It's just hard to do well. The more you think things through, the more complex it gets but you also see how that complexity actually impacts peoples fun ar the table.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is just the inevitable cause of an aging edition. The original mission statement was that the edition should be streamlined and easy to pick up, but as people became increasingly familiar with the rules, they want more complexity (the benefits of "simplicity" are felt most acutely by new players). I'll say that a vocal minority 'want more complexity' and I see at my table that some players can barely handle the complexity that is at PHB level.
In other words, they don't bother to RTFM. This edition is most certainly not rules light.
This is the 7th year of 5th. We have 4-5 more years before edition change. hopefully.
We don't need more classes, more races, of for that matter, more spells.
Settings, adventures, tools.

But every edition had/has bloat to a certain extent.

"Power Word: No" - I love that.. lol
It's a DM cantrip. :smallcool:

This is coming from someone who does thing the FR lore is troublesome. likewise. Too bad Greyhawk isn't available throught WoTC ... although I have some on line resources that help me A Lot as I fill in bits in my Greyhawk based campaign.

After all, running a game without any Feats would likely draw the blue response. We ran 5e for four levels without feats when we started in 2014. Didn't miss them. Glad I have that option now, though.

That said, in the past, the reaction to such a decision would be "Wow, the DM is kind of a hard-ass", as opposed to "Wow, the DM is a terrible human being". If the latter sentiment is expressed to my face, as a DM, the response is to lift a hand, point a finger and say:
"There's the door. Goodnight, hope you find a table to your linking."
Life's too short to put up with that kind of friction in a leisure activity.

when the DM says "No, you may not play this," the player gets indignant
There's the doorway option use case, as above.

Outside of closed tables, the idea of "Talk with your DM to make sure your character is right for your table" has been thrown out the window in favor of "The player can do as he likes". I find that a cooperative char gen effort where the Dm and Player communicate to make sure the PC fits into the world is best. That's true across all editions

Am I just a grognard? The new subclasses seem to always be better, and in some cases have made the base classes obviously inferior choices. Yeah, power creep is a thing.

I think the problem may be within the culture of WotC. MTG is all about newer stuff making older stuff useless/non-competitive. It seems MTG people are moving over to 5e and are bringing along that business model. I don't mean to doubt your grognard credentials, but OD&D supplements did that same thing, as did AD&D ... so this isn't just an MTG thing, though MTG is more aggressive with it. (Hearthstone is doing it too, in a different way).

The other thing is rules bloat. And here's my usual whinge about "the spell list is too darned big. Liposuction needed"
In someway rule bloat is really the issue. A player wanting to try new material only need to know the limited rules of how it impacts their choices but the DM needs to understand that and also the impact it has at any other point of contact it has with the rest of the game. Anything that can potentially slow a game down is something to be concerned about. Not every DM is neurotic enough to repeatedly read the source books cover to cover multiple times. Heh, guilty as charged on the neurotic bit.

And, a bit, on the DMs who don't set clear expectations in session 0. I've got a "approved sources" section of my basic document and we go over it. And I vet all characters before they start play, and prefer that character creation is done in communication with me. Less for mechanical purposes (other than to preview to me where I need to set power levels, etc) than for thematics and world-fit. It's a tried and true method.

Rather, it is assumed that the players can be trusted to follow the rules of their characters/game as best as their abilities allow them Unfortunately, I have discovered that only a portion of the player base bothers to learn their PC and become expert at them. The assumption is, IMO, baseless in as many cases as it is valid.

The issue is that leg work and extra head space adds up. Quickly. There is a reason DMs are rare and burnouts are common. Yes; our first DM reached burnout, but, he and his wife also adopted two kids, so his priorities changed a lot. And I don't blame them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And even if (big if) the players know their characters perfectly, they don't know all the details of the situation (nor should they). Which means the DM also has to know their characters, at least to a significant degree. Not all the details, but their basic capabilities as well as things the players may not know are relevant.

The more interacting pieces there are, the more content there is, the more this overhead bites and detracts from being able to run the game smoothly. And "new subsystems" are the absolute worst here, because they're entirely new overhead, with no or little reuse of existing routines.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

The issue is that leg work and extra head space adds up. Quickly. There is a reason DMs are rare and burnouts are common.

Not sure if rulings/house rules/tweaks themselves are that big a cause of burnout. Maybe a straw that breaks the back, sure, but the effort in planning, organizing, playing the game, dealing with expectations/fears/stress, etc. are more likely to increase burnout.


The growth in "things that have to be considered" and things that can break grows faster than linearly with the number of interacting systems. If only pairwise interactions are considered (which is a severe underestimate), it's O(n^2). In the general case, it's O(n^m), where m is the depth of the interactions. And that's horrible. And it doesn't constrain creativity to have non-interacting mechanical systems, because you still have flexibility as to how you apply those pieces and which ones to apply. Frankly, "mechanical" creativity turns into working the DM more than anything else, and that's horrific for new DMs (it turns into basically a form of bullying).

That's under the assumption that feature interaction occurs in every adventure/campaign/session.

Again, I'll ask where these kinds of nested/webbed interactions occur, because I can't think of any that are especially problematic that haven't been discussed ad nauseum within the community, Sage Advice, splatbooks, etc. - I can see it being an issue for new DMs, but I would expect that a new DM would either have support from their players or be DMing for players who themselves are new, meaning there isn't high chance of exploitation or confusion.


Spells and abilities should only do what they say they do, by default. Anything else should get added by the DM at runtime. 3e ran into this horribly, where any tweak to any part of the system had hundreds of knock-on changes. So 5e explicitly and intentionally went the other way. There are no hidden rules--if it does something, it says it does it.

I think there should be that space for improvisation and synergy. It's not really about hidden rules, but about finding novel uses for the features in the game.



IIRC AD&D (both editions) went 12 years. That's about what I'd like to see for 5e. So wait about 2-3 years before ramping everything up.

3/3.5 was around 8. 4th was around 6. But those didn't push product like 5e. I guess the trend will be to keep the edition going for as long the WotC/Hasbro high priests and market trend algorithms deem it worthy, with a slow saline drip of new splatbooks.


I've run games out of a game store near a college. I found it was a mix older post-college veterans (including some who checked off all the worst stereotypes), constant turnover of college age players as they found other interests or graduated, and every once in a while a young teen or pre-teen that dragged mom to drive (and play with) them. Very few people with money to spend on things other than the PHB. If that.

Money, money, money. I don't know if that is as great a hindrance as some may think. There are a surprising amount of ways to find scans of books and similar reference materials, if a player is willing to look. :smallamused:

[Pex]

"This expansion is required to play" already exists for 5e; case in point: Tasha's. We've reached a point where "If you don't use this book or the rules within, then you're an evil person" is considered acceptable thinking by a not-insignificant portion of the playerbase. For those DM's who don't cast power word no, the behavior that comes from that portion of the playerbase is enough impetus for them to buy the book de jour, if only to avoid the unpleasantness.

But of course, all those rules are optional... until you choose not to use them, at which point, how dare you.

Perhaps this is too cynical, but I'd say WotC has a very strong understanding of this and isn't afraid to move forward with respect to profit by peer pressure.

The "how dare you" is not about denying New Fun Stuff but metagame overtones that WOTC themselves have specifically declared to be Correct Thinking to abide by. By that standard not using Tasha amounts to Incorrect Thinking, and that's where the "how dare you" comes from. It's a problem of WOTC's own making, not the refusal to use New Fun Stuff.


Not if players are are under any impression that any material is automatically assumed to be part of the game when it explicitly is RAW/RAI that it's 100% at the DMs discretion. They have made that point more and more apparent with each book release to the point soon they will probably have to go full Canadian cigarettes with a disclaimer on the face covering 1/2 of it to get this across.

That not a minor miscommunication or small error that can be waved off as pedantic when it's part of the core design philosophy of the game.

It's pedantic because you're complainingg about a word used. There's no difference between a DM banning the Tasha book and a DM not using the Tasha book.

[Tanarii]

The "how dare you" is not about denying New Fun Stuff but metagame overtones that WOTC themselves have specifically declared to be Correct Thinking to abide by. By that standard not using Tasha amounts to Incorrect Thinking, and that's where the "how dare you" comes from. It's a problem of WOTC's own making, not the refusal to use New Fun Stuff.Yeah, it's a whole new thing in terms of frequency and intensity. :smallyuk:

But I've had a few people on these forums take mighty close to a "how dare you" attitude to the idea that'd someone would run a no feat no Multiclassing game. (Although it's FAR more normally "I wouldn't be interested in playing".)


It's pedantic because you're complainingg about a word used. There's no difference between a DM banning the Tasha book and a DM not using the Tasha book.Perception. Semantics is often at the heart of how something is perceived. Or sold to folks. However you want to phrase it.

In terms of results it's the same thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's under the assumption that feature interaction occurs in every adventure/campaign/session.

Again, I'll ask where these kinds of nested/webbed interactions occur, because I can't think of any that are especially problematic that haven't been discussed ad nauseum within the community, Sage Advice, splatbooks, etc. - I can see it being an issue for new DMs, but I would expect that a new DM would either have support from their players or be DMing for players who themselves are new, meaning there isn't high chance of exploitation or confusion.


Three examples:
1. See any rules discussion in 3e. Since every piece interacts implicitly with every other piece, a slight wording issue with one ability causes cascading changes and interactions across the system, often creating absolutely broken things.
2. A simple one from 5e that eats tons of mental overhead--reaction abilities. As a DM, I have to know
* which players have reaction abilities that interact with other people's attacks or saves
* What all the conditions are that allow usage (ie before the roll, before the result, etc)
* Who has/hasn't used what
In addition to all the regular factors such as advantage and disadvantage and cover. And that produces significant slowdown, because I can no longer just punch the "roll attack" button on the VTT twice. I have to say "ok, he's attacking <character>...pause...<roll>...pause...<roll damage>" or be ready to backtrack and ignore some rolls. I've got currently
* a paladin with Protection fighting style
* a bard with Cutting Words and who likes Vicious Mockery
* a warlock with Shield and Absorb Elements

These very simple interacting effects cause significant mental overhead. So it doesn't even take many interacting pieces.
3. 4e had tons of these via keywords. So you had to know all the keywords of all the abilities, monsters, etc in play and all the effects that hang off of them or interact via those keywords. The mental overhead was combinatorial and contributed to 4e's reputation (deserved) for being an utter slog at higher levels.

[x3n0n]

Three examples:
1. See any rules discussion in 3e. Since every piece interacts implicitly with every other piece, a slight wording issue with one ability causes cascading changes and interactions across the system, often creating absolutely broken things.
2. A simple one from 5e that eats tons of mental overhead--reaction abilities. As a DM, I have to know
* which players have reaction abilities that interact with other people's attacks or saves
* What all the conditions are that allow usage (ie before the roll, before the result, etc)
* Who has/hasn't used what
In addition to all the regular factors such as advantage and disadvantage and cover. And that produces significant slowdown, because I can no longer just punch the "roll attack" button on the VTT twice. I have to say "ok, he's attacking <character>...pause...<roll>...pause...<roll damage>" or be ready to backtrack and ignore some rolls. I've got currently
* a paladin with Protection fighting style
* a bard with Cutting Words and who likes Vicious Mockery
* a warlock with Shield and Absorb Elements

These very simple interacting effects cause significant mental overhead. So it doesn't even take many interacting pieces.
3. 4e had tons of these via keywords. So you had to know all the keywords of all the abilities, monsters, etc in play and all the effects that hang off of them or interact via those keywords. The mental overhead was combinatorial and contributed to 4e's reputation (deserved) for being an utter slog at higher levels.

I see now! I had misunderstood some of the effects you were talking about.

Effects that require synchronous decisions by entities other than the DM and the active player are a slog for any remote game (or even for slow/careful players at a physical table), and even "passive" modifiers are at particular risk for being missed, or thought to have been missed. ("Don't forget, you're Blessed right now." "Doesn't matter, this is an ability check, not a saving throw." "Really? Let me go look at the spell.") At least many of them are limited resources, but the "problem" players are often the ones who will "hoard" their uses of (say) Cutting Words or Lucky anyway and thus slow down every interaction for the whole game.

In a usually-1x1 game with like M:tG, there are mechanisms to make sure that the inactive player is paying close attention, since they have a resource that will be eaten up if they choose not to respond (some form of clock in both online implementations). For good reason, there's no such concept for D&D combats. (It would be absurd for every player in a Roll20 game to "pass priority" on every d20 roll.)

The cognitive burden is also real, but at least technology or a good note-taking system can help on that front.

[stoutstien]

It's pedantic because you're complainingg about a word used. There's no difference between a DM banning the Tasha book and a DM not using the Tasha book.

I see a big difference because one is seen as a reduction of player agency while the latter is a expression of DM authority and responsibility.

I'm not complaining if a DM wants to call his own material whatever but an outside looker I think that line needs to be made clear.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I see now! I had misunderstood some of the effects you were talking about.

Effects that require synchronous decisions by entities other than the DM and the active player are a slog for any remote game (or even for slow/careful players at a physical table), and even "passive" modifiers are at particular risk for being missed, or thought to have been missed. ("Don't forget, you're Blessed right now." "Doesn't matter, this is an ability check, not a saving throw." "Really? Let me go look at the spell.") At least many of them are limited resources, but the "problem" players are often the ones who will "hoard" their uses of (say) Cutting Words or Lucky anyway and thus slow down every interaction for the whole game.

In a usually-1x1 game with like M:tG, there are mechanisms to make sure that the inactive player is paying close attention, since they have a resource that will be eaten up if they choose not to respond (some form of clock in both online implementations). For good reason, there's no such concept for D&D combats. (It would be absurd for every player in a Roll20 game to "pass priority" on every d20 roll.)

The cognitive burden is also real, but at least technology or a good note-taking system can help on that front.

Not just remote games, and those are the simplest interactions (because it's basically a flat hierarchy and the reactions don't interact with each other much).

Consider a (hypothetical) case:
* Player has an ability that lets them <Foo> when <Bar>.
* Now you introduce a feat that lets them also <Foo> when <Baz>. So far, so good. Because those two don't really interact, the overall complexity is only additive.
* Now you introduce a feat that lets them <Qux> when they <Foo>, except only when <Quin>. Now the interactions are piling up. You're starting to get into a nested conditional statement, and those are nasty slow for humans to process.
* Now you throw in an ability that someone else has that when a player <Qux>'s, they can <ABCD> and gain bonus <B> if <ZAP> and penalty <C> if <PAZ>. Brain is hurting even if each of these conditions is very simple. The net effect grows deceptively fast.

Every step of interacting logic turns the mental flow of the game into spaghetti code with spooky action-at-a-distance (sorry, I'm a programmer). And that carries a tremendous cost. Both because the chances of breaking things increase exponentially (well, at least power-law) since the attack surface and possibility of unintentional interactions increase as the number of interactions, which is power-law.

Not only that, the malicious attack surface for munchkinry (ie those "but RAW says!" arguments) grows tremendously, especially when the interactions aren't explicit. I really don't want Turing-complete rules. That's pain incarnate.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I've had a bit of a look at Tasha's and seen some things online, but I can't say I'm too familiar with the book. So I have to ask, Is anything in there tougher than a Shepherd Druid? I ask as that's the first class I've seen that just seems to dwarf (no pun) many other options.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've had a bit of a look at Tasha's and seen some things online, but I can't say I'm too familiar with the book. So I have to ask, Is anything in there tougher than a Shepherd Druid? I ask as that's the first class I've seen that just seems to dwarf (no pun) many other options.

Twilight Cleric is the biggest notable one, plus some of the sorcerer ones are, well, up tuned compared to the PHB subclasses.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Not just remote games, and those are the simplest interactions (because it's basically a flat hierarchy and the reactions don't interact with each other much).

Consider a (hypothetical) case:
* Player has an ability that lets them <Foo> when <Bar>.
* Now you introduce a feat that lets them also <Foo> when <Baz>. So far, so good. Because those two don't really interact, the overall complexity is only additive.
* Now you introduce a feat that lets them <Qux> when they <Foo>, except only when <Quin>. Now the interactions are piling up. You're starting to get into a nested conditional statement, and those are nasty slow for humans to process.
* Now you throw in an ability that someone else has that when a player <Qux>'s, they can <ABCD> and gain bonus <B> if <ZAP> and penalty <C> if <PAZ>. Brain is hurting even if each of these conditions is very simple. The net effect grows deceptively fast.

Every step of interacting logic turns the mental flow of the game into spaghetti code with spooky action-at-a-distance (sorry, I'm a programmer). And that carries a tremendous cost. Both because the chances of breaking things increase exponentially (well, at least power-law) since the attack surface and possibility of unintentional interactions increase as the number of interactions, which is power-law.

Well in this hypothetical, there is a two feat tax to increase the complexity of a player's decision tree. Does this result in having to take more time to work things out? Yes. Is this something that one might want to have after around 8 levels (or 4 and 4) of the same overall gameplay loop? Probably also yes. At the end of the day, D&D is about combat, and combat can be complex (indeed, perhaps it should be complex after some time, to keep from getting boring).

And does this complexity completely overshadow things that implicitly rely on tactics and strategy on their own? Is this example any more egregious than micro-managing summons or attempting to include terrain hazards in combat?

I guess that also touches on another stop-gap against exploitation: there really isn't much room for things to crash together unless you spend every opportunity you have trying to get feats and spells and etc. to synergize. There isn't room to customize. The biggest differentiators available is a feat every four levels, multiclassing, and maybe some random magic items. Combined with spells and class features, there's almost no room to create these kinds of huge if/elseif/else relations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well in this hypothetical, there is a two feat tax to increase the complexity of a player's decision tree. Does this result in having to take more time to work things out? Yes. Is this something that one might want to have after around 8 levels (or 4 and 4) of the same overall gameplay loop? Probably also yes. At the end of the day, D&D is about combat, and combat can be complex (indeed, perhaps it should be complex after some time, to keep from getting boring).

And does this complexity completely overshadow things that implicitly rely on tactics and strategy on their own? Is this example any more egregious than micro-managing summons or attempting to include terrain hazards in combat?

I guess that also touches on another stop-gap against exploitation: there really isn't much room for things to crash together unless you spend every opportunity you have trying to get feats and spells and etc. to synergize. There isn't room to customize. The biggest differentiators available is a feat every four levels, multiclassing, and maybe some random magic items. Combined with spells and class features, there's almost no room to create these kinds of huge if/elseif/else relations.

But I can take things that interact with monster things in ways I can't predict, if interactions are implicit. Or you can take things that interact with my things. And the DM has to hold all that state in his head at once while navigating all the issues everyone brings up. Been there, done that.

And 3e and 4e showed that there is tons of room here, as soon as you start to allow hierarchies deeper than one layer. All of the serious optimization tricks rely on these layered interactions, even in 5e. So you have to be very cautious when adding more, because now you have to revalidate every possible combination, which takes exponential time.

[stoutstien]

I've had a bit of a look at Tasha's and seen some things online, but I can't say I'm too familiar with the book. So I have to ask, Is anything in there tougher than a Shepherd Druid? I ask as that's the first class I've seen that just seems to dwarf (no pun) many other options.

Too soon to really tell but there are a few red flags from peace and twilight clerics to nearly infinity familiar with artificers and a certain infusion pick.

[Pex]

Three examples:
1. See any rules discussion in 3e. Since every piece interacts implicitly with every other piece, a slight wording issue with one ability causes cascading changes and interactions across the system, often creating absolutely broken things.
2. A simple one from 5e that eats tons of mental overhead--reaction abilities. As a DM, I have to know
* which players have reaction abilities that interact with other people's attacks or saves
* What all the conditions are that allow usage (ie before the roll, before the result, etc)
* Who has/hasn't used what
In addition to all the regular factors such as advantage and disadvantage and cover. And that produces significant slowdown, because I can no longer just punch the "roll attack" button on the VTT twice. I have to say "ok, he's attacking <character>...pause...<roll>...pause...<roll damage>" or be ready to backtrack and ignore some rolls. I've got currently
* a paladin with Protection fighting style
* a bard with Cutting Words and who likes Vicious Mockery
* a warlock with Shield and Absorb Elements

These very simple interacting effects cause significant mental overhead. So it doesn't even take many interacting pieces.
3. 4e had tons of these via keywords. So you had to know all the keywords of all the abilities, monsters, etc in play and all the effects that hang off of them or interact via those keywords. The mental overhead was combinatorial and contributed to 4e's reputation (deserved) for being an utter slog at higher levels.

That's a concern I can understand. You don't want too many buttons for players to push. It's not even a case of new game mechanics, like the infamous defunct Psionic Die was trying to introduce. Players are still using Bonus Actions, Reactions, and causing Advantage/Disadvantage, but the issue is of there being so many new things that use those actions/conditions. Exaggeration, 100 different bonus actions is not one Bonus Action mechanic to worry about but 100 different effects on the game environment, and you worry an unintended bad side effect will result. It's possible that side effect is the intended result of why that ability was made, but you find too late you don't like it and wouldn't have allowed it had you known.

I don't share that concern, but since you care very much about the cultures in your gameworld I can understand trying to have it all fit in and find too much bloat makes it hard so you discard/ban. I do understand that mindset. I do join the Dark Side occasionally and DM myself. I created my gameworld in 2E and had to adapt it for 3E then 5E. I found a place for Dragonborn but not Aasimar or Tieflings so my first run through in 5E I banned Aasimar and Tieflings. For my second 5E campaign in the same gameworld I found a place for Aasimar and Tieflings, but for my own personal need of consistency they're immigrants in the lands where the campaign takes place. If your gameworld never had psionics you don't have a place for the Psi Warrior or Aberrant Mind subclasses.

[quinron]

I see a big difference because one is seen as a reduction of player agency while the latter is a expression of DM authority and responsibility.

I'm not complaining if a DM wants to call his own material whatever but an outside looker I think that line needs to be made clear.

I don't know that I'd say it's pedantic so much as it feels naive. Technically, D&D 3.5 was "opt-in;" nothing in the written rules said you should expect to be able to use every splatbook ever used, and a lot of the PrCs introduced earlier in the edition's lifespan had esoteric requirements that could only be met if the DM arranged for them to be met.

I think the process of expansion is such that once you either reach a certain volume of additional content OR the additional content is exposed to a certain volume of players (the speed of which has been increased exponentially by the glut of actual play entertainment using 5e), "opt-in only" starts to feel to most people more like banning.

[cullynthedwarf]

Personally I think some of the spell slingers in the PHB should be looked at with a gimlet eye and asked, do these still work for the class now?

A prime example of this is the tempest cleric. Right after this came out, the Temple of Elemental Evil came out with all of its elemental spells and the tempest cleric would have benefited from from some of the spells that came out in that book. I'm sure there are other sub classes that could use this.

[Theodoxus]

I am in a similar position and take the opposite approach. Given that the table can homebrew anything you want to play, you should have no need of any particular splat.

Given that it is always possible to homebrew a solution that is more aligned with the desired world than existing options, I find this the better way out.

Yeah, it's not hard to do. Not hard to do at all. It's just hard to do well. The more you think things through, the more complex it gets but you also see how that complexity actually impacts peoples fun ar the table.

100% this. I originally heavily (very heavily) modified my game. 2d10 for skill checks, bringing back 4E's Defenses, vastly increased the number of feats... it worked, but it did massively increase the complexity of the game. And half my players were newbies (I didn't start them with a modded game, I rolled it out as the original campaign ended and a second started).

Now, I wouldn't even call my game 5E. It's using a hodge-podge of rules. the d20 is replaced with a modified version of AGE's 3d6 Stunt Die, using Banes and Boons from Shadow of the Demon Lord; the EXPERT system from Adventure Fantasy Game, Char-gen is mostly AGEist, with cribbed parts from 5E. My spell casting system is basically 'roll for activation' but I use a burn out mechanic rather than spell slots or spell points, meaning, in theory, one could cast all day, but it would require a careful throttling of your casting so as not to burn out temporarily.

Spells I kept from 5E, but I expanded the Schools to 12 (my whole gameworld is built around 12; 12 races, 12 classes, 12 schools, 12 gods, 12 kingdoms, etc. The extra 4 schools I stole from Pathfinder 2: Life, Matter, Mind and Spirit. I moved existing spells into these new schools, and tried to rebalance the number of spells each school got to be closer together - Divination is still tiny - really can't do much about that.

I'm now finishing up the race charts and looking at balance. Tasha's has given me more ideas on how to rework the races in a better way.

And then, in the last few days, I've discovered Star Wars 5E, and mind blown. My general overall system would work way better as a SW game than Fantasy... so now I'm like the dog that caught the car, trying to figure out which way to go...

All that to say, tinkering with this ruleset has proven to me the bolded quote. It would probably help if I actually went to school for game theory... I'm not sure 100% cribbing other peoples ideas into a Frankenstein's Monster of a ruleset is the way to go... it's been fun, but I'm not sure it's done 'well'.

[jaappleton]

I'm completely fine with more subclasses so long as they don't occupy the same space, and it must bring something new if it DOES occupy that space.

Storm Sorcerer VS Tempest Cleric. Thematically quite similar. In play, however? Quite different. So I'm fine with both of these, despite them both being quite similar thematically.

Undying Warlock VS Undead Warlock. This one is redundant. However, Undying is absolutely terrible, and honestly should not be in print. Its such an outright bad subclass. Undead? Even if they nerf it a bit from the UA, its still so much better than Undying. Therefore, I believe Undead should exist.

I believe there's room for a LOT more Subclasses than we have now. There's always room for more Cleric Domains (Where is the Earth Domain already?!), I'm still waiting on a Druid subclass that grants Extra Attack, etc. Lets create a subclass that blends Clerics with Monks, using Ki to cast Domain spells (I really like this one because it actually creates as many Monk subclasses are there are Cleric Domains). There's always room for more, that's my point.

And lets not even get to classes. WARLORD. My goodness I'm willing to commit a litany of felonies for a Warlord. One from 4E that I really loved that I think could be excellent in 5E is the Rune Priest. Make it a half caster, short rest style like Warlocks but keying off Wisdom with Extra Attack and Runes (their version of Invocations) to modify their attacks either offensively or defensively.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've had a bit of a look at Tasha's and seen some things online, but I can't say I'm too familiar with the book. So I have to ask, Is anything in there tougher than a Shepherd Druid? I ask as that's the first class I've seen that just seems to dwarf (no pun) many other options.Shepherd is an excellent Druid package.

As to complexity of reactions, I'll take PhoenixPhyre's point and observe from player side the issue with reactions that key off of an opponents die roll. This happened to me twice in the last session vis a vis Cutting Words.

DM rolls two attacks for a creature with multi attack, and they both come up hits (neither a crit) but my ally has a high AC (21 I think). DM has already rolled damage when I try to decide to burn a CW or not - my reaction interrupts another creatures turn. I felt (being a DM myself) that if I wait to long to voice my "hey, cutting words on that attack" I am the problem, so in that case I didn't interrupt with CW. What I did for the next two rounds was utterly focus on the die rolls as the monsters attacked so that if it was close, I'd be spring loaded to "CW on that one, DM" so as not to slow down play. Only had one case where it was needed before that fight was over.

Note what I had to do there: I had to really focus on enemy die rolls (a meta construct) not 'enemy actions' etc.

Granted, I do tend to play this game with a small unit tactics brain when combat is looming or combat has started. But for me not to be a burden, I the player have to be a little bit in DM-mode to notice a chance to apply that reaction.

And as Phoenix points out, this is with simple reactions that are based off of low level skills.

Anyway, I had a lessons learned that I need to pass along to my friend who plays a lore druid bard in the game I DM.

He's not quite as focused as I am, though sometimes he is All In With A Vengeance. (We play on line). He phases in and out of attention (I suspect that sometimes he goes out back of his house and lights up some herb).

I'll have resolved an attack and I have been getting a not infrequent "Hey, wait, couldn't I have done a Cutting Words there?"
Mind you, it took him to fifth level to even start using it after I mentioned that I'd not seen him apply that as a way to prevent damage ... so I'll work with him tomorrow night on a better way for us to signal that to me. In person I don't think this would be as tricky as when we play on line.

Right now, I think I'll set up a token action for him so that all he has to do is push the button one the die roll comes up on screen ... might work, we'll see.

[jaappleton]

plays a lore druid


Korvin, have you had your coffee today?

[Kurt Kurageous]

And even if (big if) the players know their characters perfectly, they don't know all the details of the situation (nor should they). Which means the DM also has to know their characters, at least to a significant degree. Not all the details, but their basic capabilities as well as things the players may not know are relevant.

The more interacting pieces there are, the more content there is, the more this overhead bites and detracts from being able to run the game smoothly. And "new subsystems" are the absolute worst here, because they're entirely new overhead, with no or little reuse of existing routines.

Thank you, Phoenix, this is what I meant. "New subsystems" that don't involve the primary resolution mechanic (in 5e, a single d20 roll modified and compared to a DM chosen difficulty classification (DC)) become mini-games within the game. If they happen EVERY ROUND OF COMBAT or every time/interval, yeah, that drives a DM crazy.

I can say the death of three generations of the game are partially about this. It's the cause for ADD, too many tables to look up a target number to judge success or failure. Saves for vs spell, vs poison, etc. Thats what 2E was built in part to address (THAC0), but was still table rich. 3rd further refined it down (fewer tables) and fully gave control of setting DCs to the DM (as opposed to a table) but complicated the save by having kinds of saves (fortitude and will saves, touch AC, flat footed AC, etc). I don't know anything about 4th. But 5th made saves closely defined by ability scores and character training (class).

The other point I wanted to make was, while I assume my players are honest, I cannot assume they are not in error when they play the latest thing from the latest book. I gotta know it BETTER than they do. TCoE assigns me unwanted homework and gives me headaches. It gives the players more options. Score DM:0 PLYR:1

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thank you, Phoenix, this is what I meant. "New subsystems" that don't involve the primary resolution mechanic (in 5e, a single d20 roll modified and compared to a DM chosen difficulty classification (DC)) become mini-games within the game. If they happen EVERY ROUND OF COMBAT or every time/interval, yeah, that drives a DM crazy.

I can say the death of three generations of the game are partially about this. It's the cause for ADD, too many tables to look up a target number to judge success or failure. Saves for vs spell, vs poison, etc. Thats what 2E was built in part to address (THAC0), but was still table rich. 3rd further refined it down (fewer tables) and fully gave control of setting DCs to the DM (as opposed to a table) but complicated the save by having kinds of saves (fortitude and will saves, touch AC, flat footed AC, etc). I don't know anything about 4th. But 5th made saves closely defined by ability scores and character training (class).

The other point I wanted to make was, while I assume my players are honest, I cannot assume they are not in error when they play the latest thing from the latest book. I gotta know it BETTER than they do. TCoE gives me homework and headaches, nothing more. It gives the players more.

Yeah. And when those subsystems override pieces of things and have their own "special" rules (is psionics magic? Does it require a path to target? etc), then you end up with massive pain and opportunities for breakage (in all directions, not just OP). And the whole construct gets more fragile, because now future stuff has to handle the differences.

It's why although I don't like using spells as the basic magic thing (ie for abilities that monsters have that are magic but they really aren't casting spells in the fiction) for worldbuilding purposes, it's 100% simpler to just say "innate spellcasting XYZ" and re-use existing spells for that.

[KorvinStarmast]

Korvin, have you had your coffee today? Apparently, I need to switch to double espress shots! :smalleek:

[TrueAlphaGamer]

I believe there's room for a LOT more Subclasses than we have now. There's always room for more Cleric Domains (Where is the Earth Domain already?!), I'm still waiting on a Druid subclass that grants Extra Attack, etc. Lets create a subclass that blends Clerics with Monks, using Ki to cast Domain spells (I really like this one because it actually creates as many Monk subclasses are there are Cleric Domains). There's always room for more, that's my point.

That raises a question of how much room is there to design distinct identities using only the subclass chassis. Is it worthwhile to limit design in such a way where we can only work within the scope of a few subclass features to realize these sorts of ideas, or would time be better spent on trying to form a new class that can more precisely tap in to these kinds of concepts? How many subclasses would be better served by being made into proper classes? It's entirely possible that we might reach a point where we start trying to put square pegs in round holes.


Thank you, Phoenix, this is what I meant. "New subsystems" that don't involve the primary resolution mechanic (in 5e, a single d20 roll modified and compared to a DM chosen difficulty classification (DC)) become mini-games within the game. If they happen EVERY ROUND OF COMBAT or every time/interval, yeah, that drives a DM crazy.

I can say the death of three generations of the game are partially about this. It's the cause for ADD, too many tables to look up a target number to judge success or failure. Saves for vs spell, vs poison, etc. Thats what 2E was built in part to address (THAC0), but was still table rich. 3rd further refined it down (fewer tables) and fully gave control of setting DCs to the DM (as opposed to a table) but complicated the save by having kinds of saves (fortitude and will saves, touch AC, flat footed AC, etc). I don't know anything about 4th. But 5th made saves closely defined by ability scores and character training (class).

I guess people play for different reasons. I like that kind complexity because it creates a mini-game. The degrees of freedom give more room for choice and action besides the initial die roll. Though I guess I'm also the munchkin type that played Yugioh and Warhammer so I'm used to searching for ways to 1-up a given outcome.


The other point I wanted to make was, while I assume my players are honest, I cannot assume they are not in error when they play the latest thing from the latest book. I gotta know it BETTER than they do. TCoE assigns me unwanted homework and gives me headaches. It gives the players more options. Score DM:0 PLYR:1

Well how long until the homework becomes warranted? Is there a certain amount of time before you can be expected to learn new content, or do you just not want to use new books? Of course you can't assume the player's aren't in error. Neither can a player assume the DM isn't in error. But as long as the game keeps going and there aren't any problems, what is the harm? A player might be using material from the PHB in error, and I might not catch it, because I don't remember everything in every book, but that's fine.

[Tanarii]

I can say the death of three generations of the game are partially about this.
Absolutely too much splat was the reason for the release of a new edition, in every singe case except AD&D, which was because of a lawsuit. But even for AD&D it was needed to consolidate too much splat (in Strategic review, multiple books, etc).

[OldTrees1]

Absolutely too much splat was the reason for the release of a new edition, in every singe case except AD&D, which was because of a lawsuit. But even for AD&D it was needed to consolidate too much splat (in Strategic review, multiple books, etc).

Wait was that actually the reason? There is a much cheaper way to reduce the amount of splat. You can just have the users pick & choose which splat they want to include. Maybe even release recommended bundle lists.

A new edition means you can make changes that are not backwards compatible. That might be a more plausible explanation.

Of course the most plausible explanation is to print more $.

[paladinn]

100% this. I originally heavily (very heavily) modified my game. 2d10 for skill checks, bringing back 4E's Defenses, vastly increased the number of feats... it worked, but it did massively increase the complexity of the game. And half my players were newbies (I didn't start them with a modded game, I rolled it out as the original campaign ended and a second started).

Now, I wouldn't even call my game 5E. It's using a hodge-podge of rules. the d20 is replaced with a modified version of AGE's 3d6 Stunt Die, using Banes and Boons from Shadow of the Demon Lord; the EXPERT system from Adventure Fantasy Game, Char-gen is mostly AGEist, with cribbed parts from 5E. My spell casting system is basically 'roll for activation' but I use a burn out mechanic rather than spell slots or spell points, meaning, in theory, one could cast all day, but it would require a careful throttling of your casting so as not to burn out temporarily.

Spells I kept from 5E, but I expanded the Schools to 12 (my whole gameworld is built around 12; 12 races, 12 classes, 12 schools, 12 gods, 12 kingdoms, etc. The extra 4 schools I stole from Pathfinder 2: Life, Matter, Mind and Spirit. I moved existing spells into these new schools, and tried to rebalance the number of spells each school got to be closer together - Divination is still tiny - really can't do much about that.

I'm now finishing up the race charts and looking at balance. Tasha's has given me more ideas on how to rework the races in a better way.

And then, in the last few days, I've discovered Star Wars 5E, and mind blown. My general overall system would work way better as a SW game than Fantasy... so now I'm like the dog that caught the car, trying to figure out which way to go...

All that to say, tinkering with this ruleset has proven to me the bolded quote. It would probably help if I actually went to school for game theory... I'm not sure 100% cribbing other peoples ideas into a Frankenstein's Monster of a ruleset is the way to go... it's been fun, but I'm not sure it's done 'well'.

Wow, and I thought my hybrid game was gonzo-ish:) I've tried to use a BECMI/OSR chassis, but have opted for ascending AC, Advanced LL race+class, ability-based saves, a spell slot system (ala 5e), and a mix of general skills, adapted thief skills and weapon mastery. It's a Frankengame for sure; but you definitely have me beat!

[Tanarii]

Wait was that actually the reason? There is a much cheaper way to reduce the amount of splat. You can just have the users pick & choose which splat they want to include. Maybe even release recommended bundle lists.

A new edition means you can make changes that are not backwards compatible. That might be a more plausible explanation.

Of course the most plausible explanation is to print more $.
Edit: response moved to the cadence thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24952483&postcount=74), it belongs there more

[Kurt Kurageous]

I guess people play for different reasons.

Well how long until the homework becomes warranted? Is there a certain amount of time before you can be expected to learn new content, or do you just not want to use new books? Of course you can't assume the player's aren't in error. Neither can a player assume the DM isn't in error. But as long as the game keeps going and there aren't any problems, what is the harm? A player might be using material from the PHB in error, and I might not catch it, because I don't remember everything in every book, but that's fine.

Great reply, True.

Yes, many different reasons for players. But fewer reasons to DM. DM is WORK you enjoy, players get enjoyment they enjoy (if the DM does the work). That's significant, I think.

I'm horrified to admit it, but I'm still discovering my own mis-rulings in the PHB. Most recently, I discovered that "hold action" allows for movement. For some reason (the name?) I thought a player held an action, not a TURN! Learning to DM is a never ending process, so when they DON'T publish more rules, I STILL have to study. The more they publish, the more mistakes I can make.

The thing is, when a player makes an error, the game stops and it is corrected. When the DM makes an error, it's a ruling, and the player has to deal or rage quit. You see why it's more important the DM does not make mistakes, right? The player might decide that bad DND is worse than no DND and leave the table. This ruins the game for everyone.

Rules exist for fairness, and people really enjoy fair contests and really hate unfair ones. DM is the master of the rules, and the enjoyment of the players depends on their correct application of the rules. That's why in some systems the GM is described in part as the judge.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's why in some systems the GM is described in part as the judge. In D&D, the original description was 'referee' or 'judge' - Dungeon Master was an emergent neologism that came into being after they began playing the game. :smallcool:

[MaxWilson]

I've had a bit of a look at Tasha's and seen some things online, but I can't say I'm too familiar with the book. So I have to ask, Is anything in there tougher than a Shepherd Druid? I ask as that's the first class I've seen that just seems to dwarf (no pun) many other options.

PHB Conjuror has a 14th level feature: "Starting at 14th level, any creature that you summon or create with a conjuration spell has 30 temporary hit points."

Shepherd Druid has a 3rd level feature on a short rest timer: "Each creature of your choice in the aura when the spirit appears gains temporary hit points equal to 5 + your druid level." [And advantage on strength checks, saves.]

Twilight Cleric has a 2nd level feature on a multiple-times-per-short-rest timer: "Whenever a creature (including you) ends its turn in the sphere... You grant it temporary hit points equal to 1d6 plus your cleric level... [or] end one effect on it causing it to be charmed or frightened."

Shepherd Druids are quite good, but about half of their strength comes from Bear Totem and half comes from the Mighty Summoner ability to inflict full damage (with their summons only) on creatures with weapon resistance. Bear Totem synergizes nicely with other PCs and abilities, but Mighty Summoner only does kind of (mostly via Planar Binding). But Twilight Cleric's effect is 2x or more as strong as Bear Totem, the part that synergizes.

Therefore, you know what's tougher than a Shepherd Druid? A Shepherd Druid 6/Twilight Cleric X. QED.

And both of them make PHB classes like Conjurors cry.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

PHB Conjuror has a 14th level feature: "Starting at 14th level, any creature that you summon or create with a conjuration spell has 30 temporary hit points."

Shepherd Druid has a 3rd level feature on a short rest timer: "Each creature of your choice in the aura when the spirit appears gains temporary hit points equal to 5 + your druid level." [And advantage on strength checks, saves.]

Twilight Cleric has a 2nd level feature on a multiple-times-per-short-rest timer: "Whenever a creature (including you) ends its turn in the sphere... You grant it temporary hit points equal to 1d6 plus your cleric level... [or] end one effect on it causing it to be charmed or frightened."

Shepherd Druids are quite good, but about half of their strength comes from Bear Totem and half comes from the Mighty Summoner ability to inflict full damage (with their summons only) on creatures with weapon resistance. Bear Totem synergizes nicely with other PCs and abilities, but Mighty Summoner only does kind of (mostly via Planar Binding). But Twilight Cleric's effect is 2x or more as strong as Bear Totem, the part that synergizes.

Therefore, you know what's tougher than a Shepherd Druid? A Shepherd Druid 6/Twilight Cleric X. QED.

And both of them make PHB classes like Conjurors cry.


Thanks for that. Added to things banned from my table.

[quinron]

Regardless of mechanical complaints, I think the Twilight cleric is a great example of the weird mismatch between specificity and broad archetypes that suggest we're moving toward a more bloated subclass array.

In the PHB, we've got the Light cleric; this is a cleric that's oriented around light/the sun/fire. Good strong concept that's going to show up in any pantheon.

In XGtE, we've got the Forge cleric, a cleric centered around crafting/smithing and therefore armor/weapons but also with a heavy emphasis on fire. This already feels like it's stepping on the toes of the Light cleric a bit, to me, but I'll allow it, as we don't seem to have a neat fit for the "god of craft/smithing" that's prevalent in D&D mythologies. I would've preferred a more neutral "craftsmanship" domain, but whatever.

In TCoE, we've got the Twilight cleric, a cleric specifically focused on the transition from day to night and light to darkness, with a spell list that has very little coherency to me either in terms of mechanics or theme (light spells, invisibility spells, healing/health-boosing spells, Leomund's tiny hut?!) and what seems to be an equally incoherent array of features.

What really gets me about it is that we got a cleric about the transition from light to darkness and we still don't have a cleric of darkness.

[jaappleton]

In TCoE, we've got the Twilight cleric, a cleric specifically focused on the transition from day to night and light to darkness, with a spell list that has very little coherency to me either in terms of mechanics or theme (light spells, invisibility spells, healing/health-boosing spells, Leomund's tiny hut?!) and what seems to be an equally incoherent array of features.

What really gets me about it is that we got a cleric about the transition from light to darkness and we still don't have a cleric of darkness.

Regarding Twilight: I completely agree, it’s identity is a bit of a mess. Mechanically I love it, but because I have no idea what in the nine hells it’s trying to actually do, I have a really hard time coming up with a character concept for it.

Regarding a potential Darkness domain.... There was one. Kind of. On Twitter years ago, Mike Mearls revealed his Beauty and Darkness Domains, created entirely by him as a sort of homebrew for his home game.

.....you’d figure that a Domain created by one of the lead designers would be more balanced than something you’d find on D&DWiki, but alas, it’s an absolute train wreck. And that’s coming from ME, and I once played a Theurge Tempest and a Lore Wizard!

[MrStabby]

Regardless of mechanical complaints, I think the Twilight cleric is a great example of the weird mismatch between specificity and broad archetypes that suggest we're moving toward a more bloated subclass array.

In the PHB, we've got the Light cleric; this is a cleric that's oriented around light/the sun/fire. Good strong concept that's going to show up in any pantheon.

In XGtE, we've got the Forge cleric, a cleric centered around crafting/smithing and therefore armor/weapons but also with a heavy emphasis on fire. This already feels like it's stepping on the toes of the Light cleric a bit, to me, but I'll allow it, as we don't seem to have a neat fit for the "god of craft/smithing" that's prevalent in D&D mythologies. I would've preferred a more neutral "craftsmanship" domain, but whatever.

In TCoE, we've got the Twilight cleric, a cleric specifically focused on the transition from day to night and light to darkness, with a spell list that has very little coherency to me either in terms of mechanics or theme (light spells, invisibility spells, healing/health-boosing spells, Leomund's tiny hut?!) and what seems to be an equally incoherent array of features.

What really gets me about it is that we got a cleric about the transition from light to darkness and we still don't have a cleric of darkness.

So I figured the twighlight cleric was kind of like the old household gods, in part. Your Hestia etc.. Twilight being the time when a househild would seek shelter for the evening and when they would invoke protection for their family. I saw a theme of light and shadow but more importantly warding, sheltering and protecting. Faerie fire and see invisability reveal the unseen terrors of the night (yes, darkvision would be a better fit but this is covered off by the class ability), lots of circles of protection and the like. It is really just greater invisibility that stands out to me as being a bit odd. I would have guessed either MOrdenkeinen's faithful hound or privae sanctum would have been a better fit.

[Xervous]

Regarding Twilight: I completely agree, it’s identity is a bit of a mess. Mechanically I love it, but because I have no idea what in the nine hells it’s trying to actually do, I have a really hard time coming up with a character concept for it.

Regarding a potential Darkness domain.... There was one. Kind of. On Twitter years ago, Mike Mearls revealed his Beauty and Darkness Domains, created entirely by him as a sort of homebrew for his home game.

.....you’d figure that a Domain created by one of the lead designers would be more balanced than something you’d find on D&DWiki, but alas, it’s an absolute train wreck. And that’s coming from ME, and I once played a Theurge Tempest and a Lore Wizard!

Frankly this sort of thing coming from Meals isn’t a surprise. Appearance over function and whatnot.

[x3n0n]

On Twitter years ago, Mike Mearls revealed his Beauty and Darkness Domains, created entirely by him as a sort of homebrew for his home game.

.....you’d figure that a Domain created by one of the lead designers would be more balanced than something you’d find on D&DWiki, but alas, it’s an absolute train wreck.

Emphasis mine. Missing the logic here.

Why would we expect something he created for his home game to be balanced against published material?
Is he supposed to hide all of his "bad" (guessing overpowered?) homebrew because he's Mike Mearls, and people might think that it's magically balanced because he came up with it?

[stoutstien]

IMO star druids and twilight domain could easily be switched classes with little work and it would make more sense thematically and could be brought into line at the same time.
could be a little bit of overlap with the dream druid but not enough for me to be totally worried about it. DRuid is pretty One dimensionable to begin with so all the different circles are repetitive.

[Amnestic]

Regarding a potential Darkness domain.... There was one. Kind of. On Twitter years ago, Mike Mearls revealed his Beauty and Darkness Domains, created entirely by him as a sort of homebrew for his home game.

.....you’d figure that a Domain created by one of the lead designers would be more balanced than something you’d find on D&DWiki, but alas, it’s an absolute train wreck. And that’s coming from ME, and I once played a Theurge Tempest and a Lore Wizard!

Went to track these down, spoilered images below taken from his twitter.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dhit7ycUcAAQTxY?format=jpg&name=large



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dhiu0dRVQAAqp1b?format=jpg&name=large


He did say "For the curious, when building stuff for my own campaign I kind of don’t care about balance. Anything I can break in design I can counterbreak five times as bad during a session, as needed," which...fair, tbh. Internally balanced subclasses isn't necessary for a table as long as you only have one of that class.

[Tanarii]

.....you’d figure that a Domain created by one of the lead designers would be more balanced than something you’d find on D&DWiki, but alas, it’s an absolute train wreck. And that’s coming from ME, and I once played a Theurge Tempest and a Lore Wizard!


Frankly this sort of thing coming from Meals isn’t a surprise. Appearance over function and whatnot.
Yeah, Mearls has proven repeatedly since 4e Essentials that he's an absolute disaster when it comes to mechanics design.

He did turn out to be surprisingly good at overall big picture strategic decisions though. Even if one of the best of them (release cadence) is now being intentionally overturned.

[Nagog]

In some ways, I see what you mean. In others, less so. There are some subclasses that need to be replaced entirely, Undying Patron being the top of the list (thankfully Undead Patron seems to fit the bill and will be released soon). Others are decent subclasses, but with how the game has progressed, have become less and less powerful without outside help (or Tasha's adjustments), like Beast Master, Champion, and a lot of the other PHB subclasses. Some of them, like Beast Master, can be adjusted in the ways Tasha's did: Others, like Champion, are fairly well balanced, but lack certain things other subclasses have that would be difficult to add (Champion for example lacks active abilities: All of them are passive and don't add flavor to the way the class is played).

[Luccan]

Yeah, Mearls has proven repeatedly since 4e Essentials that he's an absolute disaster when it comes to mechanics design.

He did turn out to be surprisingly good at overall big picture strategic decisions though. Even if one of the best of them (release cadence) is now being intentionally overturned.

Wasn't he also responsible for the 3.5 Hexblade?

Regardless, Twilight is a weird domain. It feels like they assigned the name separately from building the subclass, which feels like it was at least partially built before deciding it would be a Cleric thing.

[Wildstag]

Wasn't he also responsible for the 3.5 Hexblade?

Probably not; he's not credited in any capacity in the Complete Warrior.

[HPisBS]

... After all, running a game without any Feats would likely draw the blue response. That said, in the past, the reaction to such a decision would be "Wow, the DM is kind of a hard-ass", as opposed to "Wow, the DM is a terrible human being".

The proper response to the banning of feats is: "That's lame. Well, I guess now's the time to play a Monk or some other MAD character."

[jaappleton]

Probably not; he's not credited in any capacity in the Complete Warrior.

4E’s Hexblade was his.