Fuck sake Perkins is turning out to be worse than Crawford.

https://www.gamesradar.com/dandd-dev-says-there-isnt-a-new-edition-of-the-game-because-players-cant-get-enough-of-this-one/

Quote"Speaking frankly, [and] this is my own personal opinion, 12 classes is actually a lot," Perkins says. "If I were redesigning, if I could go back to 2012 to when we were talking about fifth edition for the first time, I would probably put a strong case forward that we could actually do with less classes in the core game. You know, keep the choices simple. Because when you're asking somebody to choose between a Sorcerer and a Wizard, to the untrained eye, it's not clear what the difference is until you start to drill down and you realize where they get their power from and how their spell-casting works. When you look at it superficially, they seem pretty much the same. And you know, what is the difference between a Barbarian and a Fighter? A Barbarian could almost be a subclass [for a] Fighter if we were designing this game from scratch."

Has he even read the classes? Apparently not?

Quote"That said, it's OK if some things go away because they still exist in the game. This is still Fifth Edition. So if you want to play something and there is an option that has changed and you don't want to play the changed version, that's OK.

So it is "Still 5th ed" but "Not really."
Fuck sake can wotc tell the truth ever?

QuoteSo in things like the Unearthed Arcana [playtests], we will sometimes put things in the articles that we know probably won't fly, that the community will push back on because they're not ready for it or they don't think it's right for the game that they want to play. We do that because we have to know, and that's the only way we can really know.

So they test stuff they know will fail to know if it fails... W-T-F?

Greetings!

Yeah, Omega, Perkins is sadly a clown as well. I remember him from way back, when he was a guy just involved with Dungeon Magazine. Like so many, years ago, they seemed sane, normal, and even talented, skilled, and cool.

Fast forward, especially since 2016, and we can see that so many of them are jello-filled morons, and absolutely pathetic. It is all that Woke Kool Aid, man. It rots their brain, and just opens them up to being filled with Woke Jello.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Perkins"Speaking frankly, [and] this is my own personal opinion, 12 classes is actually a lot," Perkins says. "If I were redesigning, if I could go back to 2012 to when we were talking about fifth edition for the first time, I would probably put a strong case forward that we could actually do with less classes in the core game. You know, keep the choices simple. Because when you're asking somebody to choose between a Sorcerer and a Wizard, to the untrained eye, it's not clear what the difference is until you start to drill down and you realize where they get their power from and how their spell-casting works. When you look at it superficially, they seem pretty much the same. And you know, what is the difference between a Barbarian and a Fighter? A Barbarian could almost be a subclass [for a] Fighter if we were designing this game from scratch."

I don't want to defend anyone at WOTC, but I actually agree with Perkins on this. If I were designing the game, I'd take it down to 4 base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue) and make everything else a variant on one of those. Either through subclasses or by feat selection. Then again, I bailed out of the 5E ship years ago. 

Quote from: PerkinsBy the end of the third edition, we were seeing a trend, a downturn [for] every product... And that's a signal to us... [but] the trend that we've seen in the last 10 years is not what we've seen with Third [Edition], not what we've seen with Fourth. The game is doing better and better and better. So we're not at a point in the life in Fifth Edition where we feel like, OK, the fans are telling us this is not the game for them. They're not saying that. They're saying 'we love Fifth Edition.'

So the books about gay proms, coffee shop dramas, and rainbow citadels are flying off the shelves? What about the re-done properties, like Dragonlance, Spelljammer, and Planescape? How are those selling?

It's hilarious that he think that the community pushes back against UA content because we're just not ready for it or think it doesn't fit this specific game.  I have never encountered a DM that disallowed UA content for either of those reasons.  DM's disallow UA content because it's poorly thought out and imbalanced.  Take the silvery barbs spell for example.  It imposes disadvantage on an opponent of your choice and gives to an ally of your choice advantage on their next attack, save or ability check.  It's castable as a reaction.  This would be quite good for a 3rd level spell.  It's a 1st level spell.  People don't disallow this because they just not ready for that.  They disallow it because it's way too good.  The flipside of this are all the UA options that are just bad but no one wants to take those.

Perkins is a doofus but I agree with him on number of classes; 1e AD&D got it about right IMO with classes & subclasses.

Congratulations Chris Perkins.  You have just "invented" Basic Fantasy Role Playing.

The way WotC is marketing this is just weird.  It's like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to make a new edition but they don't want to alienate all of the 5e players.  So it's 5e but it's also not 5e.  It's the same but different.  It's okay if things go away because they will still be there?  What the fuck?  Either it goes away or it doesn't go away.  Is it 5e again or is it different?  If it's 5e again, why does anyone need it?  Are they removing things or not?  Why can't they just tell us what this product is going to be?

Quote from: Aglondir on March 27, 2024, 09:51:19 PM
I don't want to defend anyone at WOTC, but I actually agree with Perkins on this. If I were designing the game, I'd take it down to 4 base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue) and make everything else a variant on one of those. Either through subclasses or by feat selection. Then again, I bailed out of the 5E ship years ago.

Even the Cleric is just a D&D-ism that is barely retained anyway as Bards now have Arcane healing.

All you really need are three classes; Fighter (fighty guy), Mage (casty guy) and Expert (skill guy); and free multi-classing between them.

Cleric is a Figher/Mage with a focus on healing spells. Paladin is also a Fighter/Mage with twice the levels in Fighter as Mage. Ranger is a Fighter/Expert with a focus on Nature, Barbarian is the same, but has way more levels in fighter than expert. Druid is a Mage with Nature/Shapeshifting focus. Etc.

Beyond that, you just need some subclass specifics like "Str vs. Dex based" Fighter options... with Rage, Unarmored Defense, and Unarmed strikes in the list somewhere for Fighter, Skill Tricks for the Expert (ex. Nature abilities, Mechanics/Locks/Traps, Social, Stealth), and spell school and/or power source focus for the Mage and you could more than cover all the D&D classes and have much broader options in general.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 28, 2024, 08:47:38 AM

Quote from: Aglondir on March 27, 2024, 09:51:19 PM
I don't want to defend anyone at WOTC, but I actually agree with Perkins on this. If I were designing the game, I'd take it down to 4 base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue) and make everything else a variant on one of those. Either through subclasses or by feat selection. Then again, I bailed out of the 5E ship years ago.

Even the Cleric is just a D&D-ism that is barely retained anyway as Bards now have Arcane healing.

All you really need are three classes; Fighter (fighty guy), Mage (casty guy) and Expert (skill guy); and free multi-classing between them.

Cleric is a Figher/Mage with a focus on healing spells. Paladin is also a Fighter/Mage with twice the levels in Fighter as Mage. Ranger is a Fighter/Expert with a focus on Nature, Barbarian is the same, but has way more levels in fighter than expert. Druid is a Mage with Nature/Shapeshifting focus. Etc.

Beyond that, you just need some subclass specifics like "Str vs. Dex based" Fighter options... with Rage, Unarmored Defense, and Unarmed strikes in the list somewhere for Fighter, Skill Tricks for the Expert (ex. Nature abilities, Mechanics/Locks/Traps, Social, Stealth), and spell school and/or power source focus for the Mage and you could more than cover all the D&D classes and have much broader options in general.

I know you mean well, but thank goodness I don't play this fucktard edition. Even with the so-called fixes you propose, IMO it still sounds like a convoluted mess.

Lipstick on a pig.

Keep it original. Keep it Old School. OSR forever.

(mic drop)

Quote from: yosemitemike on March 28, 2024, 07:47:44 AM
The way WotC is marketing this is just weird.  It's like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to make a new edition but they don't want to alienate all of the 5e players.  So it's 5e but it's also not 5e.  It's the same but different.  It's okay if things go away because they will still be there?  What the fuck?  Either it goes away or it doesn't go away.  Is it 5e again or is it different?  If it's 5e again, why does anyone need it?  Are they removing things or not?  Why can't they just tell us what this product is going to be?

Easy: they have no fucking clue what they're doing. Not in marketing. Not in game design. Not in anything.

WoTC is a company that has a chronic case of cranial rectum-itis.

I wonder if this is to encourage people to buy more current D&D products?  I'm sure there are plenty of people waiting for the "new" edition. Perhaps the projected quarter numbers for WotC are worse than expected?

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 28, 2024, 08:47:38 AM
Even the Cleric is just a D&D-ism that is barely retained anyway as Bards now have Arcane healing.

In 5e, Bards are neither traditional arcane or divine casters.  From the 5e PHB:

QuoteBards say that the multiverse was spoken into existence, that the words of the gods gave it shape, and that echoes of these primordial Words of Creation still resound throughout the cosmos . The music of bards is an attempt to snatch and harness those echoes, subtly woven into their spells and powers.

The bard spell list is actually pretty sparse in the PHB (some later supplements add a lot of other stuff to it, and therefore, a lot of power to the bard).  Bards are intended to supplement these spares spells with access to Magical Secrets at high levels, letting them grab a few spells from any other classes in the game with no ability to change your mind on this mini-multiclass power.  In any event, this "words of creation" bit explains why they get access to such a unique set of spells, and why their spell list leaves off so much baseline.

Also while 5e bards and clerics are both full casters that are intended to use a weapon more than a wizard does, clerics have better access to offensive cantrips and at mid levels either get a boost to cantrip damage or their single attack a round.  The bard has to actively pick a martial themed subclass to be able to really hold his own without expending spell slots. 

Out of all the people who say "I just want the core three (or the core four) classes" the only time I've seen anyone create anything with that idea that I personally want to play or run is Kevin Crawford, creator of Stars Without Number and Worlds Without Number.  He also doesn't just limit you to his core three classes (warrior, expert, and either psychic or mage, depending), he also gives you "partial" classes that split the difference.  His splat content for classes are usually partial things as well. 

Mostly when I hear that, I just walk on by, because someone advocating for a game with just fighter, mage, rogue, cleric is one paladin player away from learning why there's more than just four classes.  The druid started as a subclass of cleric, but it sure works wonderfully once it's been established as its own class, as it can stop wasting space on things you can't do that a normal cleric can, like turn undead.

Hyperborea and ACKS both offer up the four standard classes, then spend a decent amount of pages giving you other classes too.  The obvious implication is that if you want to run the game and limit it to the basic classes, you can, and they are an intended and well designed part of the game (versus the power creep we saw historically, where the base clasess got sorta overwhelmed by later offerings).

But a game with just the four base classes, I just don't need.  I'm not gonna run that game.

Quote from: Silverblade on March 28, 2024, 11:25:13 AM
I wonder if this is to encourage people to buy more current D&D products?

I legitimately believe this is the entire reason that they are claiming "it's not a new edition".

I've paid a good amount of attention to the playtest, and while I have no idea what's coming out in September, they have really changed a lot of how the game balance works.  For instance, the feats, which previously were just all generally meant to be worth +2 stats (with some being way better or way worse) are now being lined up into lesser feats and greater feats, and the idea is that you can't get the greater feats until like 4th level.  Even those greater feats are nowhere near as powerful as the top feats used to be in 5.0.  So the feats are nerfed! 
But all the "martial" classes, are buffed.  This is received pretty well as 5.0 has this as a common criticism (most of them don't know that this critique kinda goes back to early D&D and has always had some validity), because 5.0 lets casters move out of hiding, cast, and move back into hiding, depending on the shape of the place- a far cry from having to declare your action before initiative is rolled and risk interruption or your spell not being aimed at the correct target, or the scenario changing a lot.  Anyway, the playtest stuff had more impressive martial class scaling.

Ok so, 5.5 comes out.  It's all the same version, so you grab the variant human from 5.0, use it to take a really strong feat like 5.0 sharpshooter, and then take your first level in 5.5 fighter.  Now you have a character more powerful than can be created in either version, but it's all the same version, right?

No way.  They have to ramp up power options to sell books, and they can't let you pick and choose between versions.  There will be some kind of creation rules to prevent that.  By contrast, your 5.5 PHB built guy using something from Tasha's Cauldron Of Retcons And Apologies will be allowed, because they haven't reprinted that one yet, or... something.

So when they say that it's all the same version:
1- They want you to keep buying the existing products now.
2- They probably have a plan to keep you buying the non-directly-replaced existing products as well, later.

But I think (1) is enough to explain this obvious lie they keep pushing.

Quote from: Aglondir on March 27, 2024, 09:51:19 PM
I don't want to defend anyone at WOTC, but I actually agree with Perkins on this. If I were designing the game, I'd take it down to 4 base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue) and make everything else a variant on one of those. Either through subclasses or by feat selection. Then again, I bailed out of the 5E ship years ago.

heh-heh. Same here. And honestly alot of folk initially felt the barbarian should have been a fighter subclass.

Quote from: S'mon on March 28, 2024, 04:09:51 AM
Perkins is a doofus but I agree with him on number of classes; 1e AD&D got it about right IMO with classes & subclasses.

Then you open up Dragon and its a new class every 5 issues.

AD&D expanded classes slowly, much as 5e did. Fiend Folio and Oriental Adventures, and technically Dragonlance were about the only books to add new races or classes.

That all changed with 2e.