I think there are some "legitimate" reasons for wanting more than the four basic non-multi-classed classes.

1. Although it's not currently a problem, there have been times in the past when we could only get a DM and three players together for a campaign. A multi-class character or two came in very handy for covering the requisite bases for many dungeons (fighting, trap-disarming, healing and blasting.) The same thing has happened in groups of four when we have frequent absences.

In this regard, I was happy to see that the fighter/magic-user and the thief/magic user will be presented as subclasses in the PHB.

2. "Nostalgia" has become a dirty word for some reason, but there are many players, both recent and long-term, who enjoyed playing a particular character in past editions, became emotionally invested in that character, and are interested in ways to recreate that character, or someone very similar, in the context of 5e. Not all of those past characters fell into one of the basic races or classes.

3. Hard as it is to believe, I really do have one player who is fascinated with bards, and another with paladins and the game is a bigger draw for them if classes like that are included.

4. I think that some players really are inspired by fiction, whether books or film, and are very interested in playing a character whose features and mechanics somehow emulate that. Not all such characters fall neatly into the basic races or classes.

- Just a few reasons why the PHB is going to sell like hotcakes, none of which have anything to do with optimization tactics.

But yeah, there will be optimizers as well. It comes with the territory.

Quote from: Raven;772096Alternately, they could offer a bunch of different flavors and let each customer choose the one they prefer.

  A lot of people have used that very example when talking about the modularity of 5E. We'll see how close they come once the DMG hits in November.

My initial impression was that the modularity sounds like a bunch of goofy ad-copy and I was very skeptical.

But lately it's occurred to me that merely SAYING 5e is modular and that people can do very different things with the game... might make it modular just by declaring it so, by shaping expectations.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;772095From everything they said, I think they were trying for the D&D experience with 4E--.

What an...odd thing to say.  I think they were trying to get away from the D&D experience and try to capture the MMO fad.  4e took those things that were core D&D (niche protection, exploration and interaction pillars, random chargen (HP and ability scores), vancian magic) and threw them all out the window in favor of a tactical board game that focused on combat as 95% of game play and placed a ton of focus on making sure every class was perfectly balanced with every other class.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;772106What an...odd thing to say.  I think they were trying to get away from the D&D experience and try to capture the MMO fad.  4e took those things that were core D&D (niche protection, exploration and interaction pillars, random chargen (HP and ability scores), vancian magic) and threw them all out the window in favor of a tactical board game that focused on combat as 95% of game play and placed a ton of focus on making sure every class was perfectly balanced with every other class.

I never saw the MMO stuff with 4e, at least not how MMOs actually play. Some mechanics, like marking, have its roots in 3e like the Knight and Iron Guard's Glare stance. Other things, like roles, have been precedent in D&D for a longer time just never given direct mechanics that speak to these roles. Further, many people have been using grid-based combat exclusively since AD&D 2e and before.

As for 4e getting away from the D&D experience, this will vary greatly from group to group, player to player. I never found any distinguishing differences in playstyle when it came to 3e, PF, 4e, or Next. But that could be.just my group and we adapt the system. Probably also why I never felt 4e was combat driven or MORE combat driven compared to other systems, they just left out rules that do the non-combat stuff, which was fine for us.

Quote from: Haffrung;772008I just don't get the mania for customization.

The subconscious understanding that D&D tropes don't map to most actual Fantasy literature examples.

JG

Quote from: Haffrung;772029It has honestly never occurred to me try to take something from a movie and turn it into a D&D character. Unless that thing in the movie is a lot like a fighter, cleric, mage, or thief. D&D is D&D. Some of those ideas you throw out sound to me like someone wanting to play Iron Man in Call of Cthulhu. D&D isn't a universal action movie emulator. And the thousands of options the standard PHB afford are more than enough to come up with something cool.

But from the sounds of it, maybe there's an opportunity for a superhero RPG to make a big splash in the market today.

D&D is a fantasy-based RPG with a ridiculous number of ways to play it. In any given group's homebrew campaign I'm sure anything is possible. Basically it comes down to the group and what their preferences are. And I think giving them a wide selection to create their campaigns with is a better approach than pushing one, singular trope (Western medieval fantasy stuck somewhere between 1100 and 1400 AD). Not that it's a terrible thing, I just think that the rules can be opened to include other elements.

For example, I have a friend who LOVES Pacific Rim and wants to make a character like Gypsy-Danger. Now as a DM I'd never let him play a robot who's hundreds of feet tall with rockets and machine guns in my Ravenloft game. But instead, I might be able to accommodate the notion of a Warforged piloted by two Faeries inside. If he wanted to something similar to a "lazer" canon then he'd probably need to be a Sorcerer or Wizard who took certain spells that appeared to do those things. How he gets to Ravenloft could be a lot of fun too.

Quote from: James Gillen;772169The subconscious understanding that D&D tropes don't map to most actual Fantasy literature examples.

JG

The Grey Mouser, for example.

In the early days of Dragon Magazine, there was a more or less monthly feature called "Giants in the Earth." It was quite popular, at least in my circle,and contained write-ups for a number of fictional characters including, among many others, Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser, Kane, John Carter, Captain Blood, Morgaine, Circe, Belit and my favorite, Roger Zelazny's Shadowjack.

Granted, there were big issues in translation to D&D, but it didn't stop people from trying and was a lot of fun.

Quote from: Saplatt;772260In the early days of Dragon Magazine, there was a more or less monthly feature called "Giants in the Earth." It was quite popular, at least in my circle,and contained write-ups for a number of fictional characters including, among many others, Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser, Kane, John Carter, Captain Blood, Morgaine, Circe, Belit and my favorite, Roger Zelazny's Shadowjack.

Granted, there were big issues in translation to D&D, but it didn't stop people from trying and was a lot of fun.

  Arguably an early example of one of the earliest and most fundamental tensions in D&D--is D&D about emulating fantasy sources (usually in a mashed-up and somewhat reworked form), about being its own thing, neither, or both?

  I notice that the PHB will have a section on Inspirational Reading. That's something that's shown up on and off for a while--there's the famous Appendix N, the IMO superior list in Moldvay Basic, the list of suggested sources in the Ravenloft Black Box, and a section in D&D for Dummies on novels. In the last, it's heavy on TSR/WotC novels, with a small sidebar for classic novels. It'll be interesting to see (in two weeks) what direction Appendx E takes.

Everyone is different, but I never had the desire to play a specific character from literature.

John Carter may be awesome, but I always like creating my own characters.

Certainly the epic heroes are a source of inspiration, even if I did not attempt to specifically emulate them.

Quote from: Bill;772278Everyone is different, but I never had the desire to play a specific character from literature.

John Carter may be awesome, but I always like creating my own characters.

Certainly the epic heroes are a source of inspiration, even if I did not attempt to specifically emulate them.

Most RPGers tend to lean to Role Playing - their own character, even if its just slapping a name on a pregen. But some really get into Role Acting - someone elses constructed character, possibly complete with plot. Sometimes not. Basic Marvel RPG was that.

Unrelated but interestingly I had one player who liked playing the NPCs more than their own character. Ive been to a few LARPs with players who are dedicated NPCs. They love playing whatever villain or monster or villager the moderators need and never actually play a PC. Some DMs are like that too.

Different approaches.

Moar Feats!

Dungeon Delver is hella awesome. That's all that I have to say.

Quote from: Necrozius;774095Dungeon Delver is hella awesome. That's all that I have to say.

Yeah, that one is pretty darn usefull and I can see lots of folk blowing a stat up option or start feat to get that ASAP.