Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 01, 2022, 06:04:04 PM

Quote from: wmarshal on October 01, 2022, 05:38:18 PM
Being Woke is a totalitarian ideology.

Sort of. Its also incoherent. We have a human desire to believe that every tyrant or bad person is cackling evil with a master plan.

Wokists often destroy with a genuine belief that they are doing everybody a solid, and what they pervert counts as creation and will stand the test if time. and the culture and everyone as a whole are behind them.

No one believes himself a villain.

Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, same for Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.

Doesn't mean they were or that they weren't villains.

That they geniunely believe their destruction is a good thing I don't doubt, doesn't make them any less of a villain, in fact I would argue it makes them worse.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
[/b][/i]

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2022, 07:07:28 PMNo one believes himself a villain.

The true nature of evil is pathetic. I know that. I just mean to say that if you want to find wokists discussing evil plans around a desk will find themselves without that.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 02, 2022, 07:11:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2022, 07:07:28 PMNo one believes himself a villain.

The true nature of evil is pathetic. I know that. I just mean to say that if you want to find wokists discussing evil plans around a desk will find themselves without that.

Except they do, that they think their plans virtuous means jack shit. They're not twirling their moustaches while cackling about how they're going to extort One Million Dollars! from the world doesn't make them les villains or their plans less evil.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits" Matthew 7:16-20

Pundit U saw this coming years ago. The WW crowd jumping on WOTC to change the game. Gary said 3e wasn't D&D so what can you expect from ONE? Same SJW BS.

I'm turning DND players to GURPS and they THANK ME. 5e is a limited version of ttrpg with heavily confused design concept.

Run other games for your players 😉

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 02, 2022, 07:02:42 PM

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 06:20:51 PM
48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

Thats about 4 per class. Thats about 1 more per class then in 5e.
For real people, suddenly all of this is a problem?

I am certainly a "real people". And I have never been a fan of the proliferation of subclasses. YMMV.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 02, 2022, 07:02:42 PM

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 06:20:51 PM
48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

Thats about 4 per class. Thats about 1 more per class then in 5e.
For real people, suddenly all of this is a problem?

I bet like 20 of tbose will be wizard schools and cleric domains

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 08:27:34 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 02, 2022, 07:02:42 PM

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 06:20:51 PM
48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

Thats about 4 per class. Thats about 1 more per class then in 5e.
For real people, suddenly all of this is a problem?

I am certainly a "real people". And I have never been a fan of the proliferation of subclasses. YMMV.

Im not a fan of them either. I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

But yes, I really cannot stand them. I cannot remember if anyone cited them in Jhkim's thread about min-maxing, but I have seen some truly retarded combinations put forth. I limited them in my campaigns. Of course, I also limited races and classes as well based on the world I built.

Quote from: FingerRod on October 03, 2022, 06:35:01 AM

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 08:27:34 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 02, 2022, 07:02:42 PM

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 06:20:51 PM
48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

Thats about 4 per class. Thats about 1 more per class then in 5e.
For real people, suddenly all of this is a problem?

I run a DCC campaign. That's six classes (Warrior, Wizard, Cleric, Thief, Dwarf, Halfling; no Elves) for me to keep track of. I have allowed a Ranger and an Assassin. Both as sub-optimal variants of the Warrior and Thief. That's brings the class total to eight. Six-times more than that sounds like a nightmare to me. YMMV.


I am certainly a "real people". And I have never been a fan of the proliferation of subclasses. YMMV.

Im not a fan of them either. I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

But yes, I really cannot stand them. I cannot remember if anyone cited them in Jhkim's thread about min-maxing, but I have seen some truly retarded combinations put forth. I limited them in my campaigns. Of course, I also limited races and classes as well based on the world I built.

I run a DCC campaign. That's six classes (Warrior, Wizard, Cleric, Thief, Dwarf, Halfling; no Elves). I have allowed a Ranger and an Assassin, as sub-optimal versions of the Warrior and Thief. That's a total of eight classes. Six times that is a nightmare for me. YMMV.

I"ve not played a lot of 5E so I could be wrong but in the videos 've seen character "builds" seem a big deal and these builds just seem like min/maxing with possible story wrapped around it to give credibility.

Quote from: FingerRod on October 03, 2022, 06:35:01 AM
I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

Across all supplements, 5e has a total of 116 subclasses:
- Artificier (4)
- Barbarian (8 )
- Bard (8 )
- Cleric (14)
- Druid (7)
- Fighter (10)
- Monk (10)
- Paladin (9)
- Ranger (8 )
- Rogue (9)
- Sorcerer (7)
- Warlock (9)
- Wizard (13)

The 48 for "D&D 5.5" are just the Core. That will certainly get expanded.

Quote from: Effete on October 04, 2022, 03:34:52 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 03, 2022, 06:35:01 AM
I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

Across all supplements, 5e has a total of 116 subclasses:
- Artificier (4)
- Barbarian (8 )
- Bard (8 )
- Cleric (14)
- Druid (7)
- Fighter (10)
- Monk (10)
- Paladin (9)
- Ranger (8 )
- Rogue (9)
- Sorcerer (7)
- Warlock (9)
- Wizard (13)

The 48 for "D&D 5.5" are just the Core. That will certainly get expanded.

Help me out. Are you trying to counter a point I made? Are you adding emphasis?

Quote from: Effete on October 04, 2022, 03:34:52 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 03, 2022, 06:35:01 AM
I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

Across all supplements, 5e has a total of 116 subclasses:
- Artificier (4)
- Barbarian (8 )
- Bard (8 )
- Cleric (14)
- Druid (7)
- Fighter (10)
- Monk (10)
- Paladin (9)
- Ranger (8 )
- Rogue (9)
- Sorcerer (7)
- Warlock (9)
- Wizard (13)

The 48 for "D&D 5.5" are just the Core. That will certainly get expanded.

And?

Seriously, the "subclasses" part of each class amount to about 3-4 class traits spread across the entire level range of the class. Some of them are literally just adding options to the spell list or picking another item from a list of options available at 1st level.

The subclasses rarely alter the core function of the class enough that the GM would have to memorize all hundred of them; just maybe reference the half-dozen or less actually in use at their table (and if the feature is relevant enough, they'll be able to account for it just like they do the wizard unlocking 5th level spells (i.e. figure it out when it happens).

I also don't see too many people use many options outside of core and Xanathar's Guide... almost all the others are extremely edge case and niche. Is a subclass no one uses or even goes looking for actually a problem?

So, yeah, this subclass thing just feels like a whole lot of bitching over a non-issue to me. 5e's got way more structural problems to complain about than the existence of "too many" subclasses.

ETA: You want bloat, every time the spellcasters gain access to a new level of spells from a massive and ever growing list adds way more bloat than any of the subclasses do... but no one ever complains about the massive bloat of ever more niche spells because... tradition?

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 04, 2022, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: Effete on October 04, 2022, 03:34:52 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 03, 2022, 06:35:01 AM
I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

Across all supplements, 5e has a total of 116 subclasses:
- Artificier (4)
- Barbarian (8 )
- Bard (8 )
- Cleric (14)
- Druid (7)
- Fighter (10)
- Monk (10)
- Paladin (9)
- Ranger (8 )
- Rogue (9)
- Sorcerer (7)
- Warlock (9)
- Wizard (13)

The 48 for "D&D 5.5" are just the Core. That will certainly get expanded.

And?

Seriously, the "subclasses" part of each class amount to about 3-4 class traits spread across the entire level range of the class. Some of them are literally just adding options to the spell list or picking another item from a list of options available at 1st level.

The subclasses rarely alter the core function of the class enough that the GM would have to memorize all hundred of them; just maybe reference the half-dozen or less actually in use at their table (and if the feature is relevant enough, they'll be able to account for it just like they do the wizard unlocking 5th level spells (i.e. figure it out when it happens).

I also don't see too many people use many options outside of core and Xanathar's Guide... almost all the others are extremely edge case and niche. Is a subclass no one uses or even goes looking for actually a problem?

So, yeah, this subclass thing just feels like a whole lot of bitching over a non-issue to me. 5e's got way more structural problems to complain about than the existence of "too many" subclasses.

ETA: You want bloat, every time the spellcasters gain access to a new level of spells from a massive and ever growing list adds way more bloat than any of the subclasses do... but no one ever complains about the massive bloat of ever more niche spells because... tradition?

I already addressed some of this at another one of the half a dozen threads or so essentially dealing with this same topic:

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/will-we-look-back-and-view-the-5-0-to-one-dd-transition/msg1232115/#msg1232115

Also, I complain about the spell bloat all the time. I HATE endless variants of "Inflicts X damage type", "heals damage", "imposes condition", etc. spells. And the 9 arbitrary spell levels only compound this, by spreading them out across 9 poorly defined levels that need to be filled with inconsistently powered spells.

The existence of other poorly implemented bloat in D&D doesn't justify more of it, though.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 04, 2022, 09:19:20 AM
Also, I complain about the spell bloat all the time. I HATE endless variants of "Inflicts X damage type", "heals damage", "imposes condition", etc. spells. And the 9 arbitrary spell levels only compound this, by spreading them out across 9 poorly defined levels that need to be filled with inconsistently powered spells.

The existence of other poorly implemented bloat in D&D doesn't justify more of it, though.

At a certain point you have to recognize that one of the things people like is that it's weird and idiosyncratic and bloated.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 04, 2022, 09:19:20 AMI already addressed some of this at another one of the half a dozen threads or so essentially dealing with this same topic:

I pretty much agree about the bad design. Its just bloat, waste, fake choices, and poor balance, has been a core of 5es (maybe all of D&Ds) identity since early playtests. Why are people suddenly up in arms?

I advocate for Worlds Without Number every chance I get, because 5e has had all these issues since forever.